Popular Content

Showing most liked content since 03/30/2017 in all areas

  1. 12 likes
    TO ALL COMPLAINERS This will be my last and only post relating to you all who are complaining about OP cards and not able to climb rank. It's getting irritating to see so many new treads complaining about OP cards. If you want to complain go into 1 existing tread instead of starting a new one. If you cannot climb due to assuming cards are 'OP', the one and only real reason is, bluntly: You are just not good enough, don't know your problems, and lazy to tweak your decks, want people to spoonfeed you to which deck is the 'strongest' and so call unbeatable. In this case, you deserve to be stuck at your current level. You just asssume that there is going to be a miracle deck that wins most of your rank games without even knowing the basics of the game. People who reach masters spend time tweaking their decks and watching replays instead of complaining. Everything is fair, there are no exlusive cards limited to only certain players, if you think the deck is OP, go play it. Before satistics are gathered by cygames to decide whether certain cards should be changed, Some decks and cards are indeed good for climbing now. But it's your job to find out, learn why a certain deck wins/loses, tweak it accordingly if you so desperately want to reach masters. I hope i answer your questions to your question that you keep posting at this forum. Hopefully You learn the truth, instead of blaming others for all your problems. I hope your real life is not like that. Sincerely
  2. 10 likes
    You've become a cancer on these forums. Can you just make one thread and put all your complaints there? Or maybe go to the salt thread where you can rant all you want.
  3. 10 likes
    Not even a weak has passed and we have people talking about un-interactive strategies and i'll wager none of them have so far tried actually teching to deal with them. Hell some of the cards that are getting complained about are memes. Frog Sword ? really ? That has a less than 50% overall winrate according to shadowlog, yet here it is being talked about seriously like it's the end of the world. And to claim Aggro shadow has no counter.. After less than a week, sure it might be busted. But then we don't know after less than 7 days ! And even then i've seen people say they can rush it with Storm Haven. And who knows what other ways exist. Maybe that mass banishment known as Forbidden Ritual. List goes on. Yet here we are, with people seriously arguing they know it all less than 7 days into the expansion. Aegis bishop loses to most Aggro and Midrange decks, it's clearly there to beat control decks. So yeah, there is interactivity, as long as you accept that interactivity means you also have to do something. Because if you look at the complaints and the decks that get complained about.. Aegis and D-shift, those are very much decks that screw over control decks.. which very much seek to limit interaction for every other deck... So to complain about a lack of interaction seems deeply ironic to be honest. And just seems to reflect that Control players ,at least certain ones, seem to think themselves the apex of the game and everything else is beneath them. Because here is the thing, as a primarily midrange player. I am having fun, i actually have counterplays now. That is, control decks don't just smother me in pure value or removals with me having absolutely bugger all to do. And it is great, it means the game is actually less about playing on curve and more about maximizing your plays to get the most out of them. THAT is fun. So my suggestion is, try to explore the cards available and look for solutions to your problems. Because while i won't deny there might be balance issues, we're still less than a week into the expansion. To go on to fulminate about interactivity and comparisons to hearthstone while the metagame is pretty much a new unexplored frontier just seems utterly pointless and absurd.
  4. 9 likes
  5. 7 likes
    Right then. Thread only a few days after expansion release about balance ? Check Listing Things that need a nerf without explaining why ? Check Pre-emptively lashing out against anyone who might have a different opinion ? Check Comparisons to Hearthstone that don't work out ? Check Highly selective memory regarding last couple of metas that including somehow turning 2 months of Runecraft dominance into "Some OP Witch rune" ? Check This is in fact what happens every expansion. And we already have several threads complaining about it, people lashing out almost immediately rather than trying to look for solutions before complaining. Though of course we also have people already doing that, trying out new decks, but also old decks. Some are reporting that Storm haven is quite effective in the current meta as an example. So honestly, at this point we have no real statistics, we have barely tried out the new cards in all sorts of combinations. And even then it will take time for some of them to realise their full potential. I mean during Rise of Bahamut it took a month or two before Celestial Angel and Angel of the word really caught on. I am sure it will be the same here. So really, waiting for the meta to settle is very much the wisest thing here. We have no idea how it is going to turn out, we can guess, we can speculate. But considering how many viable deck types there are atm with numerous variations to them. To then complain that half the game needs nerfing seems.. Arrogant and lazy. And definitely not something the devs are going to be taken seriously.
  6. 6 likes
    A lot of people have been complaining that various things are "unfun" and "not interactive" and other such statements that can be very difficult to even interpret. Obviously what's fun for you is not always fun for me. Some people like the excitement of aggro, other's like the challenge of control, and some people want something in the middle somewhere. Some people want the huge swings of top decking a perfect overpowered card, and others want the consistency of a deck full of cards that are reasonably similar in power and effect. But equally important is the idea that we are playing a game against another person and that it is important that the cards we play affect our opponent's plans in some way. The fact that our plays affect our opponent's plays is called INTERACTION, and it is important because it means we are playing a game with our opponent rather than just playing a game of solitaire at the same time as our opponent. This interaction can take three basic forms: Reactive, Proactive, and Tempo. REACTIVE INTERACTION This is probably what a lot of people think of when they say "interaction." It's actions you take after your opponent has acted that mitigate or reverse the effects of those actions. The classic reactive interaction would be when I play a "Destroy" effect and remove one of my opponent's followers after they've been played. But this could also include bringing a destroyed follower back from the grave or healing damage my opponent has inflicted. Reactive Interaction is difficult to design well: if it is too good then games can stall out into zero-progress affairs where everyone cancels the progress of everyone else; and it is inherently limited by the fact that your opponent has to do whatever it is that your cards react to before you can play them. Probably the card you most think of when you think about Reactive Interaction is Dance of Death - your plays a follower and you destroy that follower. You spent 5 PP and a card, and your opponent spent however much their follower cost. Your plans advance only by your opponent suffering 2 damage, and your opponents' plans advance by whatever fanfare, last words, rush, or storm effects the follower provided - meaning that the trade is often asymmetrical. PROACTIVE INTERACTION When you play something that impacts your opponent's actions in the future, that's proactive interaction. Where healing is reactive to your opponent's damage output, damage prevention is proactive. Countering an opponent's card is reactive, while forcing them to discard it before it is played is proactive. Proactive interaction can be very frustrating to play against because it can feel that you "didn't get to play" when your only options are countered before you have selected them. Shadowverse has very little proactive interaction, with the most obvious in-game example being Ward. You play a follower with Ward and suddenly your opponent's future attacking options are severely limited. The game deliberately shies away from discard effects, and most damage prevention is small or restricted to late in the game. TEMPO INTERACTION The hardest to quantify type of interaction is Tempo interaction. That's where the actions you take force your opponent to change their plans - usually to interact with you either proactively or reactively rather than advancing their own win condition. Because Shadowverse has the ability to declare attacks directly on followers and has the evolution mechanic which gives out a limited number of guaranteed Rush effects throughout the game, players almost always have the option of reactively interacting with their opponent rather than advancing their win condition and as such there is a lot of Tempo Interaction in the game. The most clear example of Tempo Interaction is Turn 8 against Seraph Haven - if you threaten Lethal on the board, your opponent cannot play Seraph and must play some other cards to try to prevent you from beating them. If you do not threaten lethal, your opponent can play Seraph and win the following turn. What this means is that even cards like Heavenly Aegis are not completely uninteractive. Don't get me wrong, Heavenly Aegis is still cancer, and it's obviously less interactive than other cards. But you can still interact with it reactively (by healing the damage it inflicts), proactively (through wards or damage reduction), or through Tempo (by forcing your opponent to use the aegis to attack your dudes rather than go face). But it also means that a lot of times when people talk about decks being uninteractive, what they are really saying is that the deck in question interacts in ways they happen to not like. Obviously a lot Dragoncraft builds are very heavy on interaction, containing healing, wards, removal, the trheats of burst damage, and so on and so on - and yet they often get accused of being uninteractive despite that.
  7. 5 likes
    If this isn't allowed let me know and I'll remove it. I've been teaching myself how to edit videos and I think it's paying off, I'm pretty proud of this one. I could probably still use feedback though. Thanks.
  8. 5 likes
    -Remove every card that makes my deck lose
  9. 5 likes
    1) Do poorly with bad sword deck 2) Conclude that sword is dead 3) ??? 4) Profit
  10. 5 likes
    Haven has a lot of removal and high value cards to compensate poor tempo followers. If you think about it, all the other classes have a lot of great tempo followers that work without evolve, while Haven have none, or those they have come late (Garuda, Valhallan General, etc.). If you play with amulets, you gain a lot of value at the expense of your tempo: for example, you can have a 4/4 and a 2/1 storm on turn 5, which is extremely high value, but you have to "pass" turn 2 by playing Beastcall Aria. If you exclude Cudgel and Ancient Lion Spirit (which require evo and are reactive), Haven lacks early game tempo followers such as Novice Troopers, Blitz Lancer, Jeno, Floral Fencer (Sword), Beetle Warrior, Sukuna, Ancient Elf, May (Forest), Prince Catacomb, Orthrus and other token generators (Shadow), etc. Most of the available followers are understatted, and only work well in conjunction with amulets. If Haven wants to keep the pace of the other classes and not die in the first turns, they need good healings and a good removal compart. And even with those tools they usually play reactively up to turn 5 at least, when some decks start cashing their value early plays (Storm Haven with big tempo swings, Control decks with sheer value due to AoE and efficient removals). When you play against Haven you know that you'll probably outtempo them in the first 5-6 turns, and you need to apply enough pressure so that they can't make their better late game value count. If you fail, you're probably going to lose, as there's no other deck capable of generating the same amount of value as Haven: they have the best card draws, AoE, removal and now also late game pure-value followers with Aegis. The only classes that could compete in generating a similar amount of value are Shadow and Dragon. But the former generates value with Last Words, so it's at disadvantage against Haven banish effects. The latter needs to ramp quickly in order to apply pressure so that their bigger followers have influence on the game for at least 2-3 turns: if they fail to do so, Haven will probably outvalue every Dragon play, because once they both hit 10pp Haven has better value plays. And if you are forced to play defensively against Haven you are going to lose because you can't keep up with the value they generate.
  11. 5 likes
    You are flipping over because of losing 1 out of 7 recent matches? Do you expect yourself to achieve 100% winrate in a card game? Are you Einstein or Kasparov reincarnated? (Sorry if you really are, and I am a big fan of you Kasp/Einstein)
  12. 5 likes
    @Imperial Dane exactly ^ people keep complaining without even trying to actually tech cards. and before people say "there is no room for techs" there always is, how many is questionable, but if you can cover up some of your decks weaknesses with "seemingly weak techs" alot of the time the deck will work better than using stuff that might seem good on paper but not being optimal, teching is hard in the start of the expansion, but as more the decks are used, the more people will figure out what is good to run and what is not, and then begin to change their decks accordingly. and decks are no way near optimization, dragons stil run alot of unnecary cards and sacrifice early game consistency when it isnt needed, Aegis decks are way too greedy, shadow might be hard to answer, but it has the same deck design of aggro forest (they are actually way too similar) <-<~~
  13. 5 likes
    We had this type of thread before, and pretty much all the same arguments are being used. Back in the day it was: "DShift is so uninteractive! All they do is remove your stuff until they combo you!" and "Mordecai can only be removed by Haven, turn 8 win the game! Insane!". Post DE it became: "Seraph is bonkers! It literally says win the game!" Post RoB it turned into: "Daria is game breaking, they just play turn 4 Daria into turn 5 Daria into turn 6 Daria and flood the board! Madness!" along with "Roach kills you consistently on turn 7 from max health! WTF!" So tell me guys, what is interactive, mid-range Sword slinging followers all over the place and trading all around? Control Blood grinding you until the end of time? Nepthys Shadow that always had a power play on 8? You can literally describe any deck as noninterative because there's no Magic style instants, and Cygames has made it very clear that it wants to remove grinder decks that don't run a win condition from the game. If you're not happy with an opponent playing any type of deck because you don't find it fun, Cygames isn't going to change that for you. For ever deck you dislike playing, there's someone else who enjoys playing it. If you're unhappy with their design philosophy of removing control grinder decks, then you might as well quit because they aren't going to change that decision just for you.
  14. 5 likes
    well it doesn't have the 13/13 body
  15. 4 likes
  16. 4 likes
    Blood Dragon Forest Haven Rune Shadow Sword
  17. 4 likes
    Take a break then, sounds like mentally you have tilted a bit. And once that happens you're more likely to just keep repeating the same mistakes. So take a break, play some arena, watch some streams, try making decks and testing them out in unranked for the hell of it. Just mentally clear out so you can enter ranked with a fresh mind. Because otherwise you just risk making the same mistakes and getting frustrated. Realising when you're falling into bad patterns is important. So take a break then return refreshed for ranking.
  18. 4 likes
    I'm a new meme-master! I need to protect fairies, elf queens and deepwood eldritch abominations! P. S. 789 wins
  19. 4 likes
    Sorry, but then it's you who failed... to read cards properly. Ivy's text: "Deal 3 damage to an enemy follower. Then deal 2 damage to the enemy leader if at least 2 other cards were played this turn." Explanation: targeted selection damage effect, followed by a conditional effect on the enemy leader. How it works on Aegis: Aegis can be selected for the damage effect, as nothing on Aegis's text prevents her from being selected. The damage effect resolves, but Aegis ignores the damage as directly stated. Then the conditional effect resolves: if you played 2 other cards before this spell, the effects activates. Since it affects the enemy leader (and not Aegis), the leader takes 2 damage (Aegis prevents effects on herself, not on the leader). Khawy's text: "Last Words: Randomly destroy 1 of the strongest enemy followers in play and then restore X defense to your leader. X equals the destroyed follower's [emphasys mine] attack." Explanation: random selection (so, it can select Aegis) for a destroy effect, followed by a conditional healing effect on your leader. How it works on Aegis: Aegis can be selected for the destroy effect, as nothing on Aegis's text prevents her from being selected. The destroy effects resolves, but Aegis ignores it (due to her protection on effects). Then the conditional healing effect resolves. As there is no destroyed follower (Aegis is still alive), the effect doesn't heal. It's just like when your opponent suicides his last follower and kills Khawy: Khawy's effect doesn't proc, because there's no destroyed follower. This is a problem of players, not Aegis. You need to read effects properly and understand how they work. You can't complain about the rules if you don't even know the rules. I agree that if we had a comprehensive rulebook (like MtG uses to publish) it would be better. I also opened a thread on Feedback and Suggestions about that, maybe 10 days ago.
  20. 4 likes
    Following the release of TotG, my normal post-expansion excitement that usually lasts for a week or two was gone after a full day of playing and replaced with frustration and apprehension toward even logging in. It was quickly apparent that the "feel" of this xpac was unlike any of the others, and not in a good way. I stewed on it for a while, trying to figure out what was different, and finally figured out why: non interactive cards. The things I liked least about RoB were the extremely powerful cards that you weren't able to interact with at all, or until only after the card has realized its full value, namely Albert and Daria, and even older, still popular cards like Roach. Tempest seems to have taken this design philosophy well over the limit with followers that are literally unkillable, combined with giving numerous tools for non interactive cards and strategies. Cards like Vegabond Frog, Albert, Shadow Reaper, Aegis, Roach, Daria, all the new and old storm cards, etc. These types of cards were fine before, because they were few and far between or lacked the proper support tools to be consistent. This kept the game feeling like a battle of the board where players had to respond and interact with the followers being played. Obviously, there were always exceptions to this, decks like Dshift and Seraph, but they carried large enough weaknesses that it didn't feel like a completely hopeless, non interactive event, and, as stated earlier, were largely viewed as an acceptable minority in the grand scheme of things. With what has been added with Tempest, it feels as though the scales have tipped to a level that is unacceptable, where it feels the majority of games in the forming meta revolve around uncounterable strategies. Decks like aggro shadow, aegis haven, rush bahamut, dshift, and so on are not fun to play or play against because these decks are essentially playing against themselves. With a deck like aggro shadow, it doesn't really matter what my opponent does if I draw my 1-6 curve, they can't answer it. With a deck like Aegis haven, the role is reversed but still about as interactive as solitaire, "Did I draw my answer between 1-5? If I did, then here comes a wave of board clears followed by Aegis, gg." Same goes with a deck like the Vegabond frog deck that has been popping up, "Did my opponent draw a way to remove my frog on move 3? No? Ha, gg." All of this obviously stems from a design philosophy centered around reducing the average length of a game, with the primary aim being to have most games end by move 10. Hearthstone followed this exact, and I mean exact, same type of philosophy during its earlier expansions and adventures, and you know what it resulted in? Droves and droves and droves of people quitting and coming to Shadowverse and other games. No one likes losing a game where they feel as though none of their decisions had any effect on the outcome. This is why Roach, Dshift, even even Seraph have been atop the complaint heap since their inception. I mean, honestly, how fun is it playing completely optimal from 1 to 4 and still losing on 5 or 6 because your aggro shadow opponent curved out half decently (never mind what happens if they draw the god hand)? Or having a well fought battle only to watch Aegis drop on 9 essentially ending the game on the spot because only one or two classes have access to anything that reduces attack. Or accumulating small edges versus Dragoncraft just to watch your entire board get *banished* 3x on move 7,8, and 9 followed by a couple of bahamuts with rush. Don't get me wrong, I think game-ending cards are fine. Cards like Prince of Darkness, Seraph, Bahamut, they're designed to pretty much win the game on the spot, but do not leave your opponent without counterplay. But cards and combinations like Aegis, Vegabond Frog, Wind Reader Zell + Bahamut, those that are either uncounterable or require a very specific answer to be drawn in a short window of time, are detrimental to the game and grossly reduce the amount of strategy required and involved in any given match. Once the strategy leaves the game and it's reduced to who curved out better or who drew their early answer, the players will soon follow. Look no further than the timeline of Hearthstone to see this truth in action. HS started out pretty great and devolved into a glorified coin flip, causing me and many others to come over to Shadowverse. Looking at the design philosophy the last two expansions, it's apparent that Shadowverse is currently marching down the same path. I truly hope that this isn't the case and that the current design direction of the game is thoroughly evaluated and changed before it's too late. I have faith in you, Cygames.
  21. 4 likes
    I said Ramp Dragon is balanced. Storm Ramp is indeed at 60% winrate, but it isn't the Deck people are complaining. It's difficult to say how strong it's actually is because it's identified by its winconditions. It's likely it is counted as Ramp in its loses. At the moment I am counting those 2 together at about 52%. We have to wait a few weeks, if it's that strong it should be more popular than Ramp right?
  22. 4 likes
  23. 4 likes
    Stop playing then Its good to have cancerous people quit the game
  24. 4 likes
    I totally agree with you, last expansion for example daria was opressive yes but it wasn't unbeatable it only had like 54% winrate (correct me if I'm wrong) ToG is a totall mess with dragon and shadow hovering at arround 60%ish. Dragon made conventional control decks totall unplayable and obsolete. People like me who enjoy playing control oriented deck are forced either A :Play dragoncraft or B:Switch to aggro. As you said the game started very promising with a lot of potential but it's going down a grim path.
  25. 4 likes
  26. 4 likes
    If I had a dollar for every complaint during the first week of an expansion, I'd be able to afford a second Ramp Dragon deck for another account.
  27. 4 likes
    2nd day after new expansion and I keep loosing to a single Heavenly Aegis card. I like the idea matches shouldn't take too long and there are finishing games card around. My favorite that kind of card is Satan/Prince of Darkness. He's 10 play points 6/6 dude. It means you need more or less game control before you can play him, because 6/6 on turn 10 is not enough even with an evolution point left. If you can still handle the game after you played him, you get a new deck of strong cards and from now you and your opponent realize the game is going to end soon. In thoery you will be a winner, because it's an end game card, but most of the time you can play one strong card per turn that simply might be not enough. It's fair. Your opponent is still in play. In other hand we have cards like Seraph and Dimenshion Shift. I like the idea, but I don't like how it works in practice. Anyway I was pretty okey playing against it. Seraph and D-Shif decks tone down control decks and they are still combo decks, that means you need couple of cards ready to play and whole deck built around it. Not just a single card like Heavenly Aegis. The idea that late game cards end games is fine, but force people to play aggro decks. And that's not fine for me. I enjoyed Shadowverse so much, I could even stand things like Mordecai pulled for free from deck, Seraph/D-Shift combos or brainless Albert card, but after all I think it's not a game for me. I came with an idea for new cards that fit in whole Shadowverse end game concept. These cards are pretty balanced for every class. I think everybody should be okey winning with and loosing against it. Mouse would be nice if you can share it with Shadowverse designers. These are few examples: Alternate art
  28. 4 likes
    Let's not, because many of those decks simply aren't in the meta. Before I really delve into this wall, let me say that I'm not saying powerful decks are without their counters. In almost all situations a deck has at least one bad matchup. But my question isn't can you play such a counter-deck; my question is do we, as a community, want to in sufficient numbers? Let's say you added a fourth option to Paper-Rock-Scissors, one that loses to both Rock and Scissors but defeats Paper. There would be no competitive reason to ever choose this new option, because it's strictly inferior to Scissors: it beats Paper like Scissors, loses to Rock like Scissors, but loses to Scissors. Yet all the time I see people point to metagame options like that and say "hey, it's viable, it can get some good wins." No. It's completely unviable from a competitive standpoint, only valid if you are willing to sacrifice winrate for the memes. So much for your "meta." Now onto mine. In this game and many similar ones, the metagame is not meant to achieve its eventual homeostatic equilibrium. In Paper-Rock-Scissors it's very clear that each option has a 50% winrate overall, at least once players stop oversampling whichever name, Paper Rock or Scissors, sounds the coolest. In the same way, a balanced metagame would eventually achieve 50% winrate across the board if players always behaved in accordance with rational self-interest and perfect knowledge. This doesn't assume symmetry. For example, let's say A defeats B 60% of the time, B defeats C 70% of the time, and C defeats A 60% of the time. The resulting population would eventually settle on 50% A-players, 25% B-players, and 25% C players, for an average 50% winrate for everyone. That's homeostatic equilibrium. Again, assuming rational self-interest and perfect knowledge. Thing is, rational self-interest can be anti-fun and perfect knowledge makes choice boring, so developers shake up the meta with new content releases before players can fully solve the puzzles placed before them. However, to do this effectively, the puzzle still needs to last until the next content dump without the answer getting too close to solved. A metagame solved too quickly leads to a poor player experience, and the quicker it's solved, the longer that experience lasts. But I digress. The point is that, as the metagame becomes more clear to players, there is a dissonance between what players want to do for fun and what the meta is telling them to do for wins. Maybe it's 35% A-players, 35% B-players and 30% C-players, so 65% of the playerbase is under the effect of a pull, a subliminal message within their gameplay to switch from one archetype to another... a pull which will not be fully abated until 15/65ths of those feeling it finally acquiesce to the switch. Thus, we return to our original question. Are we, as a community, able and (more importantly) willing to jump through the hoops necessary to stabilize the meta by running the decks necessary to put Sword back into 50-50 winrates? The evidence is clear: we are not. Not even at Master ranks where players are more lively to have significant collections (to answer your other, unquoted point). The meta is trying to coerce us, collectively, to do things we do not want to do... and we're not doing them. There is dissonance between rational self-interest (wins) and the irrational self-interest (fun). That's what Sword's winrate means, assuming it is sustained for any significant length of time. And if you don't think that's a problem if it does, I don't know what else to tell you. Except perhaps this: it is good design for a game to direct its players to the parts each player finds most fun, and bad design when a game actively disincentives players from pursuing them.
  29. 4 likes
    I disagree quite strongly with this. Craft winrates are important for determining the overall metagame — that is, how many playstyles are viable. Different decks of same craft tend to include overlapping cards, making distinct decks often somewhat similar; therefore, ideally one deck from each craft is high viability before a single craft is graced with multiple viable archetypes. As far as specific decks, I agree it would be nice if Sword cards stuck better to themes (tokens, etc) than simply having strong standalone cards without a unifying theme. However, Sword's somewhat unfun lack of thematic cohesion wouldn't be that big of a deal if Sword wasn't so dominant. Winrates make Sword problems bigger than just Sword, escalating them into global Shadowverse problems.
  30. 3 likes
    Your first sentence here disproves your second. Patron Warrior was the epitome of what a Tier One deck should be. Yes, it was lonely in Tier One back then, but the solution to that is to make other decks more viable with buffs, not by tearing down the only skill-intensive deck a metagame has.
  31. 3 likes
    Sometimes it's the little things that make your day. :')
  32. 3 likes
  33. 3 likes
    Hello once again! So, after the very warm reception that my first Youtube video got, I thought I'd be crazy not to make more. So here I am again, presenting the second of my series of Youtube videos: How-To Vengeance Blood. Part 1 (Introduction and Deck Explanation): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ph3S7I4O_v8 Part 2 (Games): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py6SPTUnHEo Decklist used in video: https://shadowverse-portal.com/deck/1.6.63dOg.63dOg.63dOg.6F3pC.6F3pC.6F3pC.5_pzw.5_pzw.5_pzw.5_p-4.5_p-4.5_p-4.67SGY.67SGY.6BIrA.6BIrA.6BIrA.5_pFM.5_pFM.5_pFM.63dQ4.63dQ4.63dQ4.63fqI.63fqI.63iGi.5_pFg.5_pFg.5_pFg.63kiy.63kiy.6FB7o.6FB7o.6FB7o.6F6Fm.6F6Fm.6F6Fm.63i_Q.63i_Q.63i_Q Just as with Wolf Bolt, I wanted to make a deck introduction video for another somewhat fringe but powerful deck in the meta. Vengeance Blood isn't exactly a secret and if you've been on Masters ladder much, you've undoubtedly seen it. But I still don't feel the archetype or (good) lists for it are getting enough exposure so I wanted to do my small part to help inspire more people to play it. Because really, it is a very fun and unique deck to play, and one of the most original to come out of the new expansion. So, if ever you're getting tired of grinding wins with Ramp Dragon or Midrange Shadow, maybe give a deck like Vengeance Blood a try! As always, any feedback (positive or negative) is appreciated! And if you enjoyed the video and would like to see me make more, a like, comment, and subscribe is also appreciated. Thank you and enjoy (hopefully!)
  34. 3 likes
    So this is something that has been bothering me for a while and tempest of the gods has me rather convinced that there is something wrong in the swordcraft design process. Now what do i mean? Well let us have a look at the core cards for swordcraft, the basic and standard cards. What are they very much centered around ? Officers that can fill the board and commanders that can do things with these officers, buff them, augment them with ward, ambush, give them storm or become cheaper so they can be played sooner. Some officers also interact with commanders in some way but those are rarer, we even have Otohime which is a legendary that works by flooding the entire board with 1/2s. Yet with the expansions, swordcraft has increasingly moved away from these core mechanics. Sure you get officers and commanders, but they have increasingly been very much standalone cards with no real synergies. Darkness Evolved was probably the expansion that had the most there, Fearless Banneret and Whole souled swing offered ways of filling the boardd along with White paladin that offered a rather unique defensive way of doing it. But it is also where things began getting a bit weird with Alexander, a just great commander but .. who really in no way actually interacted with the core mechanics of swordcraft and was just powerful. Rage of Bahamut took that even further with Albert, but also no cards that really helped build a board, sure you had Jeno. But he was never played for that, he was played primarily for the rush. And with Clash there was a golden opportunity, yet never taken. And overall, there were no real cards that further interacted with that. The only officer commander interaction was with Geld and the lamentable swordwhip maid. But ultimately, nothing that seriously interacted or did anything interesting with the swordcraft mechanics. Albert did not say transform your average knights into skyknights when played. He was just a really good storm minion, he still is.' And then we hit Tempest of the gods. Even fewer methods for actually flooding the board.. Only Luminous mage really, and even fewer if not next to no real interactions. You got Walfrid and Lecia, but both of those are pretty much unplayable due to the current meta game, and even then.. Their mechanics are very basic. There has been no real attempt at doing anything really fun or interesting with the mechanics. The closest we got is simply Luminous mage. And the legendaries, well.. Gawain is the only legendary they have gotten in the expansions so far that actually has any interaction with other cards as such, that actually offers synergies. 1 out of 4 expansion legendaries so far. Most other crafts have at least 2 if not more. Shadowcraft has 3, yet swordcraft has 1. And why do i mention shadowcraft ? Well, shadowcraft has been getting a lot of those interesting mechanical cards that work around what is the domain of swordcraft, big token boards. They got Shadow reaper the last expansion which works great in a manner that fits the shadowcraft aesthetic nicely, IE when stuff dies, he gets bigger. And with this one ? hoo boy, they got Eachtar, who is basically Otohime and Walfrid stuffed into one and works with the core mechanics of shadowcraft.. IE shadows. WOW, toss in Prince Catacomb, Dolorblade and Zombie Party and they got a lot of things that can help build big boards and synergize with them.. Meaning currently shadowcraft is better at what Swordcraft does, plus it has all of those neat last word things as well which got more support with that ledger. Now take a look back at Swordcraft, how does that even make sense ? How can they consistently fail to really do anything interesting with the core mechanics of swordcraft, with officers/Commanders, with the Tokens. Yet somehow do all of this cool stuff with shadowcraft ? I mean no matter how you look at it, something is not adding up there. And increasingly players are beginning to notice it and talk about swordcraft being in an awkward state. And not just the guys who have been complaining about Albert for the last 3 months (For good reason) Since Albert has rather i think been the ultimate symptom of the completely bizarre and quite frankly Blizzard-esque design process that has afflicted swordcraft, because none of the other crafts have just had several expansions worth of cards that barely interact with the core mechanics. Only swordcraft has. So what gives ? What is it that causes @Mouse masters to apparently suffer the equivalent of Blizzards treatment of Paladin for almost a year now ? Are they apparently so utterly short of ideas that they somehow can't figure out anything there ? In which case i'll be more than happy to help. Officers that build board but maybe with some mechanic attached ? Green Knight 3pp 2/2 Fanfare : Summon a Knight. If a Commander is in play, summon another Knight. Signifier 4pp 2/5 At the end of your turn, if 2 or more officers have attacked, summon a knight. Commanders with officer interaction ? Sheriff 3pp 2/2 Fanfare : Give all allied Officers +1/0 Baron of the North 5pp 4/4 Give an allied Officer +1/+1. If two or more allied officers have attacked this turn, give another allied officer +1/+1 Amulets ? Banner of the King 3pp When a knight is summoned, summon a steelclad Knight instead. Maybe some spells ? Reinforcements 3pp Summon 3 Knights. Enhance 6 : Summon 3 steelclad Knights instead Royal Armoury 4pp Give an officer +3/+3. If any commanders are in play, randomly give one +1/+1 What about legendaries ? Sir Lancelot of the Round Table 7pp 5/5 Fanfare : Transform all allied Officers into Round Table Knights Round Table Knight 3pp 3/3 Charlemagne 6pp 3/4 For every Commander on board, summon a Paladin. Paladin 3pp 2/3 Ward. Might not be the most balanced solutions.. But at least they try to do something with swordcraft on a mechanical level, which is certainly more than what has actually been done with swordcraft these 9 past months. So while i am obviously not expecting any feedback to this. I do sincerely hope that someone finally picks up the ball vis a vis Swordcraft mechanics and begin giving us some actually fun cards to play and no more Alberts. Please, if you want to do swordcraft as control, try doing it via the mechanics instead of just tossing in big commanders.
  35. 3 likes
    So, as some you of you may already know, I'm a streamer on Twitch for the game Shadowverse. I've been posting highlights from my stream on Reddit for some time now but thus far, have not done any specified recorded video content. That changed today. Without further ado, I'd like to introduce my first ever Youtube video: How-to Wolf Bolt! Part 1 (Introduction and Deck Explanation): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZg5L1_aA_g&t= Part 2 (Games): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxcSbUOZIWo This is the first in a (hopefully long) series of videos I'd like to do where I show off decks in Shadowverse; the fundamental ideas behind them, the lists I'm running of them (for this or that reason), and (ideally) how to play them at a proficient level. The idea for this series came from the observation that there doesn't appear to be too much quality, instructional material for Shadowverse on Youtube as well as the fact that some decks really aren't getting the exposure they deserve right now. I do not claim to be expert of just about anything in the game, but I do play it a hell of a lot and I hope that my experience can be at least a little helpful for some of you out there. In this first video, I talk about Silver Bolt Forest (also called Wolf Bolt); a deck that I feel has still been unjustly ignored this expansion. Any feedback and suggestions for new videos is greatly appreciated! (And yes, I know. My video editing and overall presentation has a lot to be desired. This was more of a test video to see if people would be interested in the general premise as well as my ability to deliver on it. If there is, I will certainly try much harder to polish future videos.)
  36. 3 likes
    1. You say "your explanation of the Phoenix Roost / Aegis interaction was wrong". Explanation: It was verified by translation by @Coin from official source. You have your own version of SV, so in your reality cost of Aegis doesn't change. Hmmm, ok. 2. "you failing the original challenge pretty hard". Challenge: The card was explained, but ... "explanation of the Phoenix Roost / Aegis interaction was wrong and you didn't know that you had to make one in the first place" "you didn't know that you had to make one in the first place" Of course, because it wasn't stated in the challenge. You suddenly demanded to list ALL POSSIBLE COMBINATIONS OF AEGIS WITH OTHER CARDS. Are you kidding me? You even remembered Roost! After 2 more posts you will remember Lurching Corpse ? Nobody will be sitting and listing interaction of Aegis with other ~600 cards.
  37. 3 likes
    Aegis text: "Can't be damaged. Can't be affected by any other card's abilities except for those that change this card's attack or defense." Explanation: Every card that has a direct effect on Aegis will not have effect on Aegis due to her wording, unless it's a buff/debuff. Every card that changes the rules, affects leaders or other followers will behave normally on leaders and other followers, but the effect on Aegis will be ignored. Note that Aegis can be selected (by targeted, conditional or random effects), but the effect on her will be ignored. Examples: Durandal the Incorruptible: works (changes the rules for followers of the Sword player and leader [can be understood by the fact that a glowing aura surround them]; since it doesn't touch Aegis, it works; I can agree that the wording of Durandal is not precise, but this is a problem of Durandal, not Aegis); Test of Strength: works (affects followers once they enter in play or once ToS enters in play: in fact you can see that every time you summon a follower when ToS is in play, ToS activates with an animation; given that, this will affect every other follower [which needs to attack an attackable enemy followers if present] but not Aegis [since the effect of ToS is countered: in fact, when you see ToS animation you will also see Aegis's shield blinking]; here again it's ToS which has an imprecise wording, not Aegis). Wards: work (a Ward affects an enemy follower, not Aegis; so Aegis must still attack followers with Ward before attacking face or another follower, because SV rules tells her to do so); damage on Aegis: doesn't work, as directly stated; Elana, Keen Enchantment, other buff/debuff related to attack and defense: work, as directly stated. transformation, destruction and banish effects, and all the other effects: don't work, as directly stated.
  38. 3 likes
    Like, If I have 3 non-animated card and 1 animated card then I liquefy them. I'll have an option to choose normal liquefy or liquefy from name. Which will liquefy 1 non-animated card. This would be QOL improvement for some people so we don't have to manually liquefy extra non-animated card. I wish this'll be added as feature for future patches.
  39. 3 likes
    I am solidly in the camp that says Aegis is horrible design. It's horrible because it relies on a part of the rules that is not in fact accessible to the player in any way. Aegis is immune to card effects that are coded in the program to have effect arrows that point to it. How do you know that a card is coded in the program to affect it? You don't. There's absolutely no way to tell by reading the text. Consider the following texts: If one of your followers in play has Ward, the opponent can only attack that follower. Leaders cannot be attacked if there is a follower that can be attacked in their area. One of those works on Aegis and the other doesn't! How is a player supposed to know that by playing the game and reading the documentation? They can't find that out until they run into it in game and make a confused animal noise. That is horrible design. Cards should be designed in such a way that when you read them you know what they do, and Aegis is not like that. Example Two: Deal 3 damage to an enemy follower. Then deal 2 damage to the enemy leader if at least 2 other cards were played this turn. Randomly destroy 1 of the strongest enemy followers in play and then restore X defense to your leader. X equals the destroyed follower's attack. One of those gives you enemy face damage despite not budging the Aegis, and the other one gives you zero healing when it fails to budge the Aegis. Why does it work like that? I don't know! It's somewhere deep in the code and is not really reflected in the English or Japanese text. That's horrible design. That's the worst designed card. You couldn't make a worse card than that. And just to add insult to injury, to somehow make the worst card ever made even more awful for the game, it's a really high impact card. It's not like you played your Orthus in the wrong order because you didn't realize she can give bonuses to followers you just played this turn and can't attack or something. If you make a play based around how you think Aegis works and you're wrong, you probably just lose the game on the spot. And to make it even worse than that it's a card whose specific effect is to act as a hard win condition that crushes poorly tuned and durdly decks that new players are likely to play. The only way Aegis could even possibly be worse than it already is is if somehow it ended up the most powerful deck overall. It isn't that. But it's cancer in every other possible way a card can be a poorly designed nightmare sandwich of feces.
  40. 3 likes
  41. 3 likes
    I found the best nerf possible! Every one who plays Aegis are refused to complain about anything until Aegis rotates out!
  42. 3 likes
  43. 3 likes
    I will start thinking of nerfing Aegis when (if?) the deck will reach 60%+ winrate. Nerfing a 50%~ish deck? What's the point in doing that? If someone is stuck on the wrong side of that percentage, he's probably facing an unfavorable matchup (e.g. control Sword), or he's simply playing his own deck the wrong way.
  44. 3 likes
    Let's play the "guess who made this post" game! Aaaand my guess is on-point. Okay responding to the post: if you find yourself getting dominated by a particular deck, play that deck yourself and you'll either: 1. Steamroll through everyone else because the said deck is really "cancerously broken and unbalanced" as you suggested 2(the more probable one). Find out that the said deck isn't omnipotent afterall. That way, you will learn that deck's weaknesses and hence play against it well in the future.
  45. 3 likes
    You need to take a break from the game if it upsets you this much. Right now you are just making fool out of yourself on the forums.
  46. 3 likes
    Dealing a net 20 damage to her face usually seems to do the trick.
  47. 3 likes
    Yea, that's exactly what Roland is suppose to be. Drop her, survive some OTK's, drop your Albert/Fangblade. And surviving OTK combos is a win condition in itself, since they don't have other way to win.
  48. 3 likes
    I know this topic can be dangerous, but I still hope to get a civil conversation out of it. I have been playing SV for a couple of months. Before that, the only other CCGs I have played were Hearthstone (only for a month, too unfriendly for beginners) and MtG (but at that time Internet wasn't a thing yet, and if you wanted to "netdeck" something you had to buy magazines which had tourney decklists and rankings). So, this is the first time for me in a "CCG community". I noticed that more or less every day we have complaints about something. At the beginning (for me) it was Daria. Then Roach. Then Sword. Then how uninteractive DShift was. Then Albert. Now it's Dragon. And Aegis. Some complaints were also about Snek combo. Someone complains about bad design. Someone else complains about specific cards, as he/she thinks they ruin a class/archetype. Someone else again wants nerfs. I was wondering... why? I mean, OK, I can understand the salt after a lost game. After a losing streak. But does this "salt" really produce something constructive? If someone just wants to vent his anger, there's the salt mega thread. Instead, I see more and more topics (opened here and on Reddit for example), full with comments of people that doesn't just feel "salty", but wants some specific changes to the game because of their losses to specific cards/crafts/decks. And I don't really see the point. Shadowverse is a card game, owned and developed by Cygames. They write the rules, they create the cards. What's the point in complaining that a "rule" (= a card) is "unfair/bad designed/etc." if you have no power to change it? It's just like you are a soccer player and you complain with the referee, or the audience, that the offside rule is "unfair" and you want to play without it. If you don't like some rules of a game you can do 3 things, in my opinion: 1. you can promote an action to ask those who write the rules (=Cygames) to change them... but this is an extreme decision; 2. you can find a way to play around those rules (= play so that you don't go offside); or 3. you can decide not to play that game anymore, if you don't like those rules. Someone will say that complaining here in a thread is just like point 1. I say no, because you don't apply any pressure to Cygames. Let's take Aegis as an example, since it's recent. Many players don't like her, and many threads has been opened, full of complaints, of nerf requests, etc. Problem is, players still play Aegis. So, there are players who actually enjoy playing with that card. Now, Cygames has access to all the statistics for our games. Do you think they will take into account 4-5 people that complain about Aegis in a forum? Or will they take into more consideration the hundreds of thousands players that actually use her regularly? (Here Aegis is used just as an example. I could have talked about DShift or Albert as well, no offense intended to those who actually complained about her). TL; DR What's the point in complaining? Wouldn't it be far more constructive to find ways to play around the cards and the crafts everyone complains about instead of just getting angry here? Or maybe write directly to Cygames to ask for clarifications/nerfs if you really feel some cards as oppressive? I hope nobody will get mad at this post. I just want to start a constructive thread... not to dig a trolls' lair.
  49. 3 likes
    Let's be completely honest here: Aegis would be utter dog**** if it could be removed in anyway.
  50. 3 likes