Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing most liked content since 09/19/2017 in all areas

  1. 8 likes
    So, let me understand... You are saying that it's OK for DShift and Aegis to have bad matchups, since you already said in your prevoius posts that DShift loses badly to aggro, and you know that Aegis loses badly to combo and to very fast aggro as well, otherwise it wouldn't have such a crappy winrate in this meta. But. You don't want bad matchups for your deck. You want your deck to be good against aggro (and it is already, as you said), AND good against combo like DShift, AND good against slow control like Aegis. So, you're telling me that you want your deck to win against every other deck around.
  2. 7 likes
    I've learnt that Death's Breath is almost an open invitation to take 10-12 in face if your Neutral opponent has at least some board ... and that's with the active. There's no better excuse to evolve a Tin Soldier or play Feria + Alice than on a skipped turn and low-pressure wards. The entire enemy board will be buffed into 3-ATK range because you chose to ward over remove, and you'll take the remainder of the post-evolve board to the face ... usually opens you up for instant lethal the next turn, even if you Khawy. On my way to Masters, I almost never won a single match with Nep Shadow where I did not instantly remove the opponent Neutral board, with DB or a passive ward play as the alternative ... but we knew that wards were useless already. The matches where I didn't have the cards immediately in hand, I lost. Look, I was originally excited for Extinction too ... finally a board clear without absurd trigger conditions for Shadow. But I also wrote that as a partial clear, it has to be 5pp, or more likely less (probably 4pp) in order to maintain some semblance of cost-balance with respect to the current pace of tempo aggro. Removal is already harder to use, and much more situational than mindless curve - a positive pp trade is the last aspect that keeps it, and therefore combo/control decks, anywhere near relevant. The day that removal falls below fair value, and actually becomes more expensive than trading a stat follower into the enemy, is the day balance in SV dies ... oh wait, Alice made that happen already (1pp for a 3/4 Goblin, try kill that for fair value). There is no incentive to play a deck that is not tempo aggro ... and we will all become Neutral Sword mains, or quit. That is why Card Knights is worthy of complaint. Because there is no answer for it in Shadow, say, that makes the cost trade worthwhile. ZParty is the cheapest 3 DMG spell, and it costs 2 x 3 pp to play one on every Knight, with the addition of 4 pp to compensate for the price of draw 2 extra cards, because Council is 1 card. So even the baseline trade is terrible. The second option is Foul Tempest, which is fair at 3 pp ... but requires 1-2 more pp in effective price, because you have to find the shadows off other cards' Last Words/Fanfares. Add that to the fact that Card Knights can be played in any situation ... 3 bodies on the board is immediate fixed value, in terms of tempo. Tempest or ZParty are much worse - their value is conditional, you only receive that fair 5-6 pp in effective value if you play them on the correct targets. If there is an empty or half-filled board, Tempest creates less value ... it is possible for ZParty to be worth exactly zero, if your opponent plays Ambush Sword. So there is a risk of 2-3 pp, in exchange for a range of possible effective value, from 0 to say 6 pp ... which is why we play these cards. They reward skilled control piloting that consistently rolls toward the top end with extra value for the cards. But Card Knights breaks SV, quite literally, because you can now play a dumb Sword deck and always obtain 5 pp in effective value for the card. Pilot decisions do not factor into the match. There is no downside to playing Neutral Sword over every other deck now, because why risk 0 - 6 in value off a dice roll, when you can play a card that fixes your value at 5? It cheapens the work of control players who fight and struggle to roll 6 with consistency. That is why over-costed control is so corrosive. It is not a question of power or slow matches, but the death of the calculation that makes players choose between archetypes. And we haven't even factored in the fact that Card Knights can be buffed by Alice or Feria to access absurd pp value, such as 10/13 in stats + Bane + Ward + Storm (that's functionally a Zeus plus Bahamut for 7 pp, and one evo). Or the fact that ZParty is responsive, and has a chance to injure but not kill an enemy. It's like Neutral Sword and Nep Shadow players both roll a dice every turn of the match for tempo value, except the Sword dice is labeled 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and the Shadow dice is labeled 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Why would you ever want to play control? If you think about, what is the justification for playing Seraph or Ramp? It's because you can spend 8pp + 5pp to create a 13/13 Servant of Darkness, or drop an absolute threat in Seraph. But if you can create the same level of threat for much less effort and skill ... say with a Golden Lion highroll on Turn 4 ... there's no reason not to play Neutral Haven. The differentiation used to be that Neutral Haven or other tempo decks were more risky - there was a chance your opponent could respond with Themis, say, and wipe your board, whereas with Seraph there is less probability of a tempo deck using Odin as an answer. Therefore control receives more stability in its win condition, as compensation for the risk of extra turns. Expensive control cards don't just make SV harder for control decks, they kill the justification for not playing a face threat every turn instead of removal. There is no downside to trying to kill your opponent from Turn 1 onward, because removal is not cheaper than aggro. So in a way Cy's cards are worse. This XPack has printed control cards that standardize the Alice tempo-removal imbalance ... where Haven can spawn a 4 DEF, 5-follower board on Turn 5, control will always have a Mist of Extinction available only at 7pp. So even if your opponent isn't playing a Neutral Tempo deck, you are functionally playing the same matchup of Mid Shadow or Wolf Bolt Forest against Neutral Haven, because your removal cards are handicapped to the same extent. Cy is incredible. I thought it wasn't possible to have a continuation of the Neutral tempofest from WD, but they've printed cards that are ensure it will be the same until every class receives a 3pp Themis. @Void @Kyubey @Othello @zzMedVeDzz @fangore so there's my long answer to the opinions you've raised. I also don't know why there is a chap around who thinks Nep can consistently survive until 7. Sounds like someone has never played Nep Shadow into Neutral Haven or Sword before. Post Script. In an imaginary meta where Mordecai, and Silver Bolt, were the only two finishers that exist, SV is alive. Let's ignore for a moment the difference in 8 or 9 pp. On Turn 8, playing Morde is the equivalent of the fold - you receive the fixed value of 5/5 in stats on the field to use, in terms of the upcoming turn. Ideally you will attack face for 5 DMG. On Turn 9, playing Silver Bolt is the equivalent of the bet - you risk value between 0 and 9 to face, depending on your hand size and whether your opponent has counters like Roland on the field. There is the chance of a comparatively lower reward, but also a higher yield. You can also view it in the opposite direction as well. Morde is the bet that you are more skilled than the Forest player, and are able to pressure their hand so Silver Bolt only creates 4 or less to face in value. Bolt is the fold that you are able to defend with 5 or more cards, at the very least. SV diversity is alive here because of choice. There is a decision to be made, and rewards based on the previous choices of the player, the skill, the hand, etc. It is a system that allows for Morde to be the correct option, sometimes, and Silver Bolt to win out if the operator is genuinely better - has played better, the entire match, and therefore has been able to play White Wolf the previous turn or keep 9 cards in hand. Thus SV is an actual game, and not a mindless roulette wheel. In the current meta, there is a third card - Albert, Levin Saber - on Turn 9. Saber is objectively better than either option, in that it can deal 10 to face immediately - there is no reason to prefer Morde's 5, or Bolt's 9. Saber is available to every idiot, regardless of their earlier choices in the match. Saber will never be useless in the hand, like Silver Bolt before specific conditions on Turn 9, or removal. Thus SV dies, because there is no world in which there Silver Bolt or Morde would be preferable. One would always play with x 3 Albert in the deck, because there is no downside. In this metaphor, Morde is what balanced Aggro/Tempo would be like. No particular chance for overvalue plays, but no undervalue either. Silver Bolt is Control/Combo, with a chance for above-value drops, but also the risk of outvalue to Morde if you only kept 4 cards in hand. Levin Saber is the current state of Aggro/Tempo, where it is the objective, unquestioned choice that is better. Of course, in the actual meta these cards function differently, and interact with ward or other effects. But the example stands, where when control finishers or removal is objectively worse than the face threats it can answer under even the most optimal conditions, there is only the Levin Saber meta, and nothing else. Which we seem to have seen empirically, at least in the WD block. So if some chaps are still unsure why their Sword or Alice decks are murderous for the existence of SV, read this ... or don't, because it'd probably be an unpleasant truth.
  3. 6 likes
    So after seeing a lot of forumites discuss how they aren't comfortable building decks or tinkering with decks, I figured it might be a fun learning experience to spearhead a deckbuilding workshop. The general idea would be geared towards getting people who are interested to join together in a private message thread, and as a group we would all decide on building a deck or decks, while sharing advice and learning together through others experience and using common deckbuilding concepts to come up with some decks that could be viable. Sort of a no-fuss no-drama environment for learning deckbuilding. If anyone is interested feel free to DM me or post here, so when I start up the thread I can add you to it.
  4. 6 likes
    I didn't expect to happen today, but looking how close I was & how many times I did 10-12 wins in a row, I thought, why not push for it? so I kept on playing & after many hours of grinding the time for trials came, I won 2 in a row against 2 Aggro Sword, both manage to reduce my life to 1 but I won anyway It took me a long time to reach Masters but the experience was worth it, I had some really great matches along the way, lot's of them make me rage, other laugh & cheer like crazy not believing my luck when you have such great time playing a game, when a game make you feel all kind of emotions good & bad (all is in the game) then you know that the ones responsible for it have create something really special, that's how I feel right now after playing SV since the game launch in the West & I was playing from my smartphone back then as there wasn't a Steam client, it kept me good company all this time, let's hope that the devs will make all the right moves to keep the game enjoyable for many years to come.
  5. 6 likes
    Hello Everyone! So I made rank B with this deck, probably not a big deal but I am really happy about this accomplishment. I am still relatively new and started playing again today, started at rank C3 this afternoon. Also I would like to know what you think about this deck and what I may can improve, this is the first deck I made myself Twilight Queen is pretty fun and you can do cool combo's with her!
  6. 6 likes
    So apparently no one has chanced upon one of the more logical conclusions here: People actually like playing those decks, and might have added in a few new cards and what not. But if someone likes playing a certain deck they're not going to go out there and try finding new decks. And honestly being ticked off at people because they have the sheer audacity of enjoying the game with pre-existing decks seems a bit rude to me. Not everyone is an amazing deck builder, that is why netdecks exist. So those people have a chance to play the game as well.
  7. 6 likes
    Saving this game? Impossible. Because there's nothing to be saved. The game is just right, with flaws and strong points, just like every other manmade stuff. People always complains... "skillverse", "curveverse", "faceverse"... It's a CCG after all. Now, I'm not a CCG expert, but I still have to find a CCG that has NO flaws. Even MtG, which is the oldest around, has a lot of issues. If a game with no flaws existed, everyone would play that one and leave all the others. But it's not happening, so I assume that the flawless CCG is yet to be made. If the game is complex, then it's no good because it doesn't attract new and casual players. If it's too easy then they it's mocked "skillverse". If packs are expensive and there are no giveaway events, then devs are too greedy and beginners' experience is poor. If it's f2p, people complains about netdeckers at lower ranks. Not to mention, every player thinks he/she is better at designing than all the teams hired at Cygames, Blizzard, Konami and WotC. Please, gimme a break. Want a skill intensive game? Play chess or go. They're free, no luck involved, no netdecking allowed, and some sites let you even choose look-and-feels with anime waifus, if you like them. /rant
  8. 5 likes
  9. 5 likes
    So I wanted to start a thread where the Shadow players on the forum could keep a pool of the updated lists we're all modifying throughout the months. It's because I know that Shadow lists can often have many variants or tolerate a much wider extent of off-mainstream choices that still work, compared to the other classes ... so perhaps veterans and new players alike could benefit a lot from reading up on each others' lists for new ideas. It's also a difficult class to play sometimes, because all the powerful lists are usually mechanics-heavy with Last Words or necro counts. The rule is that each of us should maintain one post in the thread, and keep it updated via edits as you make modifications ... sort of like an index. Don't make multiple posts on the subject matter or responses, let's keep this index clean. If you want to make comments, make a subsection in your own post ... simply put, I want this to be a Table of Contents for Shadow, and then we can make new threads in the Shadow sub to discuss specific lists at length. It's fine to say you're running a very similar list to someone else; there's a limited range anyway. @Greevilz @Chappie @zzMedVeDzz @Aru're @Void @AAA @Patrickzzz @Morrigan @fangore and any other Shadow users, let's get started?
  10. 5 likes
    Hours to build, days to refine it and learn to pilot, especially if it's not braindead SMOrc. And weeks for those, like me, who only have ~1hr/day available to play. You don't take deckbuilding seriously if you really believe that you can build a counter to a popular and strong deck in a couple of hours. Ever tried joining a competitive team? They meet, have discussions, practice for hours on regular basis, sometimes daily especially before tournaments. Do you think they do so because they're idiot and cannot find a solution you would find in a couple of hours by yourself? "It takes some hours" lol. Define "some".
  11. 5 likes
    This is probably going to be an unpopular opinion, but I'm going to put it out there anyway: Aggro Swordcraft isn't a problem. Yes, it's consistent, and yes, it's obnoxious that there exists a deck in the game that can kill you before you even get the chance to use all your evolution points (the entire mechanic that is intrinsically designed to let player 2 stabilize), but look at the current environment for moment. The top deck, hands down, is Keeper Dragon. This deck has immense board control at virtually all stages of the game, and as such board based defense and win conditions are not valid unless they are absurdly sticky. If you want to beat this deck, you're not wasting your time on wards that don't work; you're going all in on face damage or doing everything in your power to set up some sort of combo OTK before Forte and Genesis end your life. Aggro Sword handles the Keeper Dragon matchup decently well, because it does what I described. But it also does well against many other decks in the format, because those decks have also been forced to do the above - forgo most defense and focus on winning with damage out of hand. If Keeper Dragon were to be brought in line or even outright deleted as a competitive deck by a set of nerfs, it's entirely possible that Aggro Sword would fumble and die in the following environment, where decks in general could afford to be more methodical and pack outs to Aggro Sword, Roach, or whatever other deck pops up to take Keeper's place at the top of the totem pole. Call it conjecture, but after having watched the past several months unfold, I absolutely do not believe that the second best deck in the format is always going to be the one that ruins lives after you eliminate the first.
  12. 5 likes
    People are explaining to you why the card is not unfair, YOU are deciding not to understand it. The "lack of understanding" is on you, not anyone else. You can feel free to just say "It is ridiculous and overpowered" and thats just fine. Your perrogative. If you don't plan to listen to other peoples reasoning, why are you posting it here? This queer thought process of dismantling cards because they work in a deck, so that other decks can have an easier time makes no sense. By that logic, Cygames will just have to keep changing cards everytime they change other cards, because something else will take the place of the first deck.
  13. 5 likes
    Over the past few days I've responded to various threads from players like @Neecow @keonspy on how to build a Shadow deck ... I remember there was a thread from @Caster on a similar subject too, which I meant to write in but didn't have the chance. I also noticed a fair few responses in the thread about your own SFL decks like from @Optimal Lactation that talked about how a lot of us prefer to netdeck because crafting your own is, well, objectively rather hard ... even I read net lists sometimes, for ideas. So, I wanted to soapbox a bit, and start a thread, on the specific theories I and everyone else uses to build a deck. I know plenty of players here already build their own decks, but I haven't really come across any place where I could find some advice on the theory in general ... only on specific decks. Streamers only ever post decks; never tell you how they built them. I think it's not easy, but not impossible either ... and it's a fair part of the fun in SV for me, as @midgardsormr would probably agree. I don't consider myself the best pilot - I only reached about ~3500 MP in Masters playing casually on-off last season, but I do only play my own decks - currently it's Control Forest, Neph Shadow, Seraph Haven ... used to be a bit of Control Sword, Elana Haven, etc. in there too. I've had fair success with them, I made Masters in 6 days with a ~70% win rate on a custom Nep Shadow deck from the floor of AA0 rank (the data said I was supposed to have a 51% WR, and this was with plenty of Dimension Shift). Just a note, I specialize in mid, combo and control decks over curve builds ... which will never be the true popular meta due to several reasons like minimal support for slow archetypes, over-costed control cards, and the difficulty of trying to pilot a deck that can have no 'on-curve' drop to default to sometimes, for example. But I think they're interesting, and definitely perform as well as any other deck - if not better - if you invest the time to learn them properly. So, without further ado - -- 1) Combo Even if you think you play face-rush instead of combo, you technically play combo. I think this is the heart of SV. Across cards, and decks, I believe there is still a sense of balance and 'fair value' for individual cards ... that is, by themselves there are very few standalone cards that can immensely out-value an opponent or carry your deck (theoretically ), aside from special cases. Those special cases are also liable to nerfs, like Alice, Wonderland Explorer. So you win by playing a deck with better inter-card synergies, which often aren't accounted for in the balance process ... what I call technically combo. A simple case of this was the debate I had over the inclusion of Cassiopeia, or Will of the Forest, in my CForest build. Will is technically better for aggro/tempo, since it strikes on Turn 5 ... but Cassiopeia can be recycled as a valid target for my Nature's Guidance and Barrage spells, which is more reach in the long run. So I settled on a 2-2 composition of the two. My philosophy is that combo shouldn't be a 3-card combination that wins you the match, like Seraph. It's the maximization of card groups in your deck that allows for cross-pool synergies. The idea is in my Control Forest deck - I theoretically have the 'A' pool - 3 x Roach, x 3 Elf Child, x 2 Brambles, x 2 Whisperer, x 1 Tia, x 1 Lily ... that's 12 valid cards to bounce for some utility, and reuse. On the other hand, I have the 'B' pool - x 3 Nature's Guidance, x 3 Barrage, x 2 Pixie Mischief, x 2 Ancient Elf ... that's 10 bounce triggers. The former are all more powerful because I can reuse them, and the latter all less prone to brick because I'll have more good choices to bounce. Now I add the 'support' pool. My chosen finishers in Roach requires those bounces, and Silver Bolt requires that hand size ... so I run those. I run Venus as an x 2, because with bounce you'll be able to draw off Harvest Festival without ever really decreasing your hand size. And I run Elf Queen, because with all those extra Fairies or 1 PP spells cast, you'll have 20 shadows on Turn 9. The entirety of the other choices are chosen to reap as much benefit from your playstyle as possible. The heart of SV is that you don't win because your Turn 4 play overpowers their Turn 4 play on curve in every situation ... that's liable to have your Turn 4 play nerfed, like Alice. It's because you played double Fairies for 2/2 in stats, and then used Mischief to recycle your Brambles from Turn 3 whilst throwing their Priest back into hand. That's utility that transcends stats, and the consistent use of this wins you the match. Another example is that Lurching Corpse is a terrible card in a vacuum ... 1/2, can't trade, requires a spell or other means to activate Last Words. So is Troth's Curse ... 3 PP for a kill, but doesn't leave a body, and kills one of your own followers ... isn't Dance of Death better? Both are terrible standalone cards on curve. But in a Shadow deck where you have both, on Turn 5 you can quite literally clean a curve board off the map with the two. Corpse + Troth's a specific combo, sure ... but what if your entire deck were a pool of similar cards, and if you picked almost any two cards they could pull off a mini-combo? That's the essence of how a deck can still truly out-value an opponent, even if it doesn't play control. 2) Tempo, Value and ... Plan B? There are a fair few metrics players use to evaluate new cards ... the most frequently used ones I've seen thrown around are tempo, and value. To put it simply, I - and probably everyone else - assess value in terms of pure stats, and then the 'market value' of its effects - i.e. how many PP would I have to pay for a similar effect on the open market, where I could play any other card - with respect to its card cost. I think tempo is harder to assess ... a lot of players see this as how far it pushes you towards your main win condition, even if it's "deal 20 in face". I think of it as ... the 'shadow' cost of a card for your opponent, in terms of what it'd take to completely reverse whatever the card did. Finishers technically have infinite value, like Dimension Shift ... since you lose with no answer. Seraph has a 'shadow value' hard locked at 8, since it would take an 8 PP Odin for most classes to answer it, next to whatever discounted value we want to place on a 4/3 body. There are cards like Themis that place a hard cap on a board's tempo value without Last Words, since it takes at most 6 PP to clean it. If your card deals face, then you have to consider the cost of heals ... which is why Tribunal at 4 PP is not an answer to Levin Saber at 5 PP, because you have to spend ~5 PP to heal up afterward for the 5 to face (the 'market value' of heals is roughly ~1 PP per 1 HP for Haven, just see Holy Monastic Water). So this is why I never hesitate to include Elf Queen in my decks ... because with 20 shadows that aren't used otherwise, she's effectively 23 PP of tempo, since she heals and leaves a 6/6 body boarded (I'll explain the 3 later). Tempo is an important concept because choices that look to have excellent value at first, like Mail of Obliteration or Fafnir, if you looked at stats ... reveal why they're so terrible under this metric. Removal for all classes is capped at 3 PP, since everyone has theoretical access to Dance of Death (I discount 2 PP for 2 HP face). Thus they don't have a tempo cost of more than 3 PP, theoretically. Under this metric, Corpse is poor tempo ... but Corpse + Eater is not. That's a 1/2 body, which is 1 PP, then 2 cards in draw, which is 4 PP, then a random kill effect that can usually be controlled, which is at least 3 PP, and then 2 shadows, which is ~1 PP (just see the Soul Hunt vs. Pact comparison) ... which is 9 PP for 4 PP played. If I wanted the same, I'd have to cast a Soul Hunt (3), then 2/3rds of a Spellbook Decryption (4), then a Goblin (1) ... which is ~8 PP. The last metric I use myself is the Plan B value for a card, which is what I call it. I think of it as the reduced tempo of a card when played off-curve. Lyrial, for example, or any generic Neutral body played on Turn 2 has 2 tempo ... since your opponent requires a 2 PP spell usually (except Blazing Breath) to remove it. But on Turn 8 beside a full board, Lyrial has ~0-1 tempo value ... because you can assume that your opponent has already prepared AoE for you, if they're a competent player in Masters. Curve decks like to overlook this fact, which is why a build with 'the most powerful play' for Sword on every turn from Turn 1 to Turn 6 doesn't work often ... because they'll sometimes draw Perseus on Turn 6. I play decks with plenty of cards that retain their Plan B value ... Corpse is not the best on curve, but it can be adjusted with Soul Conversion to create a significant tempo difference on any turn, if your opponent plays a massive threat like Hulking Giant or Bahamut. For the same reason, I include x 3 Soulsquasher automatically in the deck. This is also why wards are better than they seem ... because a 0/2 Bells will inflate in tempo value to match Genesis Dragon, if she is effectively stopping the Genesis from storming face om Turn 9. I believe that if you protect the 'Plan B' value of your cards, which is also a reason not to run Priest in Haven (because it's terrible once evolves are all spent), the difficulty of matches where you don't draw your perfect curve will be far less painful for you, and you'll be able to make a match happen with almost any starting hand, save super hard brick ... but more on curve theory later. And that's why I strategically protect against drawing both King Elephants, plus White Wolf, in my Control Forest deck ... because the Plan B for Wolf is to tutor Elf Queen specifically for me, and heal me to full so I can continue with the match. 3) Curves I actually believe in curves. I think the common use of 'curves' is to describe a deck where you have a default, designated play that is overwhelmingly powerful if dropped on the correct turn for its cost ... like the infamous Skull Beast - Spartoi Seargent - Prince Catacomb curve of the Tempest block. But decks like that tend to die as easily as they can automatically win if RNG is on their side, because no-one ever considers the fact that Spartoi on 2, but only Skull Beast on 3 is fantastically terrible for tempo. I don't ever build decks like that. I use 'curve' as a stand-in for probability ... specifically, in the first 5 turn as a whole, which cards do you want to see, in what ratios? Then the super bloated 1 PP and 2 PP slots of my Control Forest deck perhaps makes some sense. It's because I want all those cards to show up at least once before Turn 5, in the correct ratios. I don't care if Airborne Barrage isn't a curve play, or Brambles. I know that with both I can survive to kill an tempo board, though. Another metric I use, related to curves, is how this interacts with the card count of your choices in the deck ... x 3, x 2, or x 1. I use this idea ... x 1 - I could pick a series of random matches for this card to never show up, and I would have realistic ways to finish anyway (like Lily). x 2 - I would like to see this card at least once before Turn 10, but it would be problematic for me to ever have more than 1 copy in hand (like White Wolf or Venus). x 3 - I don't care if I drew into x 3 copies, I can unbrick myself; I require this card or a substitute for every match (like Nature's Guidance). Lily doesn't make it into the x 2 category, for example, despite her incredible utility ... because it would be trouble if I ever drew x 2 copies of a 2/2 blank body in a tempo or hard control match-up, where I needed bounce, cycle, removal or finishers ... just not utility. I can also use Cassiopeia as a partial substitute for her, and finish matches before Hero/Morde/B&B drops become too relevant with Roaches. 4) Speed 5) Modules 6) Finishers 7) Card Rarity. (I'll continue the rest later)
  14. 5 likes
    I agree with this statement. There is no need to be insulting toward other players for their deck choices and it isn't something I want to see in forum threads. Let's see that it stays that way and the discussions stay civil. Thanks.
  15. 5 likes
    T6 is when Sal Breath can be played as AoE in conjuction with PDK. If managed to ramp to an Enhanced Sals by T4...lol...you'll need that. Not sure what this Bad Deck talk is about. I am a f2p player, and have only spent money on purchasing a precon deck for the alt art of Cerberus. I also play more "bad decks" than you could probably name lol. Do you really want to know why I sound hard-nosed when I say "suck it up and adapt"? Because that is how you play a game like this. You deck build and work on techs and synergies to combat your opponent. You win and you lose while you are at it and you gain invaluable experience along the way that makes you a better player in the end. Do you know what makes a bad player? Not adapting a deck or even trying. Waiting for a nerf to come down so you won't have to be challenged anymore. That doesn't foster good players. If a new player joins this game and gets frustrated after a few days because they can't Always Win, they need to go play something else. If they instead say, "Hmm, this keeps happening, so if I do this, maybe I can win?", then that is the kind of player I welcome. Not sure what game that exists where a new player joins up and immediately can consistantly win competitively over other players who have played longer than them.
  16. 5 likes
    God damn , just leave dragon like it be . Dragon already suffer tempo lost by ramping . Even my control blood and control haven beat their **** up . Dragon finally begin to seen in competitive right now , and they gonna nerf it again ?! What dragon supposed to play then ? Dragonewt altered fate otk ? Or back to dread sea genesis arriet otk ?
  17. 5 likes
    Ways to save this game: Nerf whiners.
  18. 5 likes
    So i just playing ranked with my dragon cause i got quest to win with 1 dragon match the result is I lose to control neutral forests , i lose to control blood , i lose to aggro sword , lose to neutral haven , lose to otk roach......... after lose streak 10 times against so many decks , i think i want to abandon dragon now ....... but i think i got win against shift (ty to t2 oracle t3 aiela t4 fervor t5 sibyl t6 polyphonic) ... but well i still want to play dragon but ... if i keep losing like this i think i would abandon dragon someday , also seeing the next patch didnt giving dragon any good tools also scared me to play dragoncraft for next expact. To people who said dragon is overpowered , i think you hadn't playing dragon so many times and just met random dragoncraft user that lucky to pull all his tempo cards . GL next expact
  19. 5 likes
    I am fine with the pace of the new expansions I just think cygames needs to handle their nerfs better which was the real issue during WD. Nerfs should be reserved for situations like neutral blood that needed to be stopped ASAP. The way they handled them this time has done nothing but consistently destroy whatever meta has started to form which is completely unreasonable both from a casual AND competitive standpoint. If nerfs were limited to just 1 at the halfway point of a sets lifespan (or after 1 month in emergencies) then I think things would be fine. And if more nerfs are done during the same set then they should be handled with the utmost care to minimize the damage done to the metagame. (this means not completely destroying cards like they did to BKB and Eachtar instead of "fixing" them)
  20. 4 likes
    If you're going to do the meta reports, could you please stop being such a relentless Sword booster? At least for the duration of the post where you are laying out the meta. PDK Winrate: 54.0% Aggro Sword Winrate: 54.2% For heck's sake. Aggro Sword is the second most-played deck and has the highest winrate overall of any deck with a playrate of at least 1% of the meta. It has a positive winrate against the most-played deck and there are no tier 1 decks that have a positive winrate against it. It is totally unacceptable to call that "not having an easy time." I mean, seriously who are you trying to fool? I've seen some people teching some Disco Dragon cards in PDK. Dragonewt Scholar loves Luxfang Kit and PDK loves them both. Those decks are still PDK decks, and I don't think they are all that great, to be honest. But it wouldn't surprise me if "Discard Dragon" picked up 50% in plays and 16% in winrate because some small number of PDK games are being counted as Discard Dragon because they are playing 2 cost Discard Dragon followers to feed their Keeper with.
  21. 4 likes
    exactly this ^ The community is now becoming completely spoiled and excessively whiny. I can understand in situations like neutral blood where we had a tier 0 deck eating everything in sight but that time has passed. I am all for balance patches but when they are done this frequently everything falls apart. The meta is constantly unstable and nobody has the patience to work out counters for anything because they would rather cry to cygames to fix it then try to beat it themselves.
  22. 4 likes
    Weekly report thread = Weekly meta/nerfs brawl
  23. 4 likes
    Also I made a conceptual Phantom Dragon deck for fun. The 3 synergies in the deck are the power of draw - between Staircase, Eater, Last Words, etc. - the use of Phantom Dragon - to receive Ambush, and to receive Ignore Ward from Deadmoon - and the use of Tyrant, from all the shadows you receive.
  24. 4 likes
    Well firstly, you can look up videos of people playing the deck and that will give you much needed insight into how it works from that perspective even if it isnt as great as playing it yourself. Secondly, if you cannot afford to or are unwilling to build the deck yourself then have the decency to wait until you have objective data to back up your claims that something needs nerfing. Sure, you wont be able to accurately deduce the ideal cards to hit in the deck to keep it in line but its at least something. People need to stop blindly screeching for nerfs. Its obnoxious >_>
  25. 4 likes
    sigh.... can we at least wait until the freaking meta stabilizes before we start making claims that something is the most cancerous deck in the meta? 1 week of data and some personal anecdotes dont exactly make a compelling argument especially when we have already found counter decks to this "cancer" People REALLY need to stop confusing "strong" and "top tier" with "broken". This mindset only leads to an endless loop of nerfs and complaints because new decks will immediately replace the old tier 1 "cancer" meaning something will always be "broken"
  26. 4 likes
    SFL has been out for less than a week and I'm already sick of all the meta discussions and nerf-this-dont-nerf-that threads. *sigh*
  27. 4 likes
    Well in the scope of Shadowverse, they should lose to combo hybrids of Aggro and Midrange. If Control decks were actually control decks (Shadoverse doesn't actually have Control decks proper...imo Shadowverse can only harbor control hybrids, like Neph. You are also not addressing the fact that Dragon has a difficult time for tempo. Ramping is generally a tempo loss with anything other than Sib. In fact Dragon is probably the only craft that doesn't have a viable deck that curves perfectly. If someone could explain to me why a Turn 6 Sal Breath is ridiculous, I would love to listen to it. I can tell you one thing though. Dragon is on the "chopping block" because it is obviously hard stopping decks that people want to work. Thats it! I mean, if you are playing cards after t5 and a dragon player is consistantly clearing your board with 2 pings maybe rethink the strategy? Sal's Breath after? No different than plenty of other strategies from other crafts. If Cygames herp derps along and nerfs PDK, because people can't counter it in a month, I just don't know... Players need to just suck it up and adapt, which can't happen in this Nerf Bomb era. Complaining instead of Working Against seems to be the standard.
  28. 4 likes
    Let's be fair. You probably won't find many communities like this forum where people share decks often and proactively help each other out in a civil manner, at least for majority part. We're better than a lot of communities I've seen.
  29. 4 likes
    Dragon Oracle: 2PP spell Gain 1 Empty play point If this card is in your deck and you dont play it turn 2, Destroy your leader~~
  30. 4 likes
    D-Shift should burn in hell. My skin crawls the moment I realize I'm playing against a D-shift deck, ugh. If it's an unranked match, I just instantly leave when I see the insight. (It could be Daria, but let's face it. It isn't.) It's not like I think the deck is OP or anything, it's pretty underwhelming actually. But I just absolutely detest playing against it, as the playstyle of D-shift decks is the most annoying one ever. "Removal, draw cards, pass turn, repeat till T8 when you have 1 HP left and win with an OTK." Also, the existence of D-shift in the meta means any kind of control deck that might want to win around turn 9-10 becomes terrible. I don't want a super grindy meta; that would suck. But, just being able to play a deck that might have a tiny bit heavier control element than a T7/8 win deck would be nice. The fact that D-shift is a thing means that just can't really happen, as if a T9 control deck suddenly becomes huge, all the D-shifters dusts of their annoying little deck and wreck havoc. This then leads to aggro decks coming out to counter D-shift, and we're back to an aggro filled meta. Rinse repeat forever. I. Hate. D-shift decks.
  31. 3 likes
    So what? How many "on curve" 7 cost followers see play? The answer is zero. There are zero followers with roughly standard statlines at 7 mana that are played in any competitive deck. And further, that's not a factor of power creep, there simply has not ever been a card with standard 7-cost stat array that has ever been playable in any meta. People didn't put Imperial Mammoths into play outside of Take 2 until they let us cheat them into play for 3 PP. If you compare Eachtar to a bunch of cards that do not see play and have never seen play, so what? What are you trying to prove? That Eachtar is still better than some literally unplayable garbage that people can't even remember the name of? What is that supposed to prove? If Eachtar is better than Orcus or Forest Archelon or White Knight, so what?! You probably can't even remember what those cards do because they are never played in constructed environments because they are terrible. Showing that Eachtar is above the "standard" for his cost slot is insufficient to show that he is over powered. You'd have to show that that standard was something worth defending. But since all the cards that live up to that standard do not see play and have never seen play, that is going to be impossible. No crafts had zero answers to Eachtar. There are no crafts that can't win by Turn 7. Eachtar's zombies only get the boost to attack with rush, not with storm. If you just don't care about Eachtar spending a bunch of shadows to clear the board then you just don't care. While he also can be used with a board already in play to squeeze out some storm damage, that's a 7 cost follower doing like 4 points of storm damage. Whoodedoo. This is so wrong that it's hard for me to even wrap my mind around someone saying this. Individual cards don't matter. Only decks matter. It's literally the opposite of the thing you said. Seraph has an overpowered effect. It has the most overpowered effect it is possible to have. It makes you win the game outright. No other card can possibly have an effect that is more powerful than that. It is literally impossible for any card ever printed at any time in the future to ever have a more powerful effect than that. Is Seraph too good? At this time, no it isn't. It isn't too good because the deck it lives in is not OP. If Haven got access to some Ramp effects or some Bane Ward followers such that they could get Seraph out faster or survive to activate it more reliably, then Seraph could become OP as a deck. Decks are never out of control because of individual cards. Decks which are out of control are out of control because of the way cards interact with each other. No card can be evaluated in a vacuum. It can only be evaluated in the context of the decks it can be played in. Aegis would be broken in Dragon but isn't broken in Haven. Roach would be broken in Rune but isn't broken in Forest. Sweetfang Vampire would be broken in Haven but it isn't in Blood. And so on.
  32. 3 likes
    You know, this is actually where Cardfight!! Vanguard is right now. Bushiroad is always extremely reluctant to restrict anything because it's better for the long term health of the game to simply print comparatively good cards for other clans and sub themes. We had about a year's worth of three or four decks sitting at the top and completely oppressing everything else (Time Leap Gear Chronicle, Sanctuary Guard Dragon Royal Paladin, both Nightrose and Grade 1 Seven Seas Granblue). It was frustrating as hell to see nothing but minor slaps on the wrist (if anything at all happened) every time restriction season came along. What players considered the true problem cards in all of these decks were never touched at all. Fast forward to the present day. There's one less card on the restriction list, Time Leap and Sanctuary Guard are all but dead because there are new, generally more entertaining and effective decks within those clans (Zodiac Time Beasts for Gear Chronicle, and pure Blasters for Royal Paladin). We also have a strong meta presence coming from Luard Shadow Paladin, Battle Sister Oracle Think Tank, Fenrir-Wiseman Genesis, both the Blade Wing and Darkness variants of Dark Irregulars, and both Granblue variants are still very much alive and kicking. We also see plenty of off-beat decks crop up from time to time - Thunderstrike Narukami, Dominate Nubatama, and Blaze Kagero just to name a few. Vanguard simply embraced the fact that it's a game about ridiculously overpowered stuff and spread the love around instead of being biased like it was in ages past. It's a much better game for the effort. To break it down as plainly as possible: every collectible card game is going to have teething problems, sometimes more than once if it's the type of game that goes through major mechanical changes every couple of years. And while nerfing/restricting things does have its place, there's really no substitute for genuinely good expansions. If a handful of players don't like a format, that's perfectly fine - because they'll get another later on down the line that better suits their interests.
  33. 3 likes
    Some things are more important than individual card balance. Like a class being playable instead of dead, or supporting a deck archetype that can't survive otherwise. Overvalue cards are insignificant tiny problems that don't need to be addressed until the decks they are in are oppressing the meta. Again a grain of sand to a desert. A drop of water to an ocean. I'd rather be concerned about the big picture than the tiniest details.
  34. 3 likes
    I know it's nothing special, but for a 31-day-old account I don't think this is too shabby.
  35. 3 likes
    The analysis here ignores the fact that you don't look at when the removal is played. It's not a question of whether removal is efficient. It's simply that you don't have the chance to play removal before your opponent dumps storm on your face. For the player with the Juliets in hand, removal is efficient because you can choose to snipe their wards, rather than run your storm into them. The player on the receiving end doesn't have that choice - they can only ever play removal after they've taken the Round Table to face, because they're not playing a deck with sufficient storm or burst to hold the initiative in the match. It's the same cards we're talking about ... perhaps it's a Dance of Death, or a Scripture. It doesn't matter ... Shield of Flame is still useless in a Control Sword deck, and brilliant in an Aggro Sword one. Removal is never the reason why storm is so good; you could attribute the weakness of board followers to any reason in SV, like too efficient a system for heals, or stall, or wards. The reason storm is so good is because it's played on your turn, instead of your opponent's. It's the safest, most auto-include function in a deck since you can secure the value instantly, versus the possibility of wards or dying to an OTK combo on your opponent's next turn, before you can cash in that value.
  36. 3 likes
  37. 3 likes
    Remove Keeper's attack immunity, maybe tweak Assembly and Ephemera slightly. After that, call it a day. I thought I wouldn't mind a monthly nerf cycle, but I was wrong. It throws the entire game and player base into constant chaos. That's terrible. It is okay to leave well enough alone if the format isn't completely unbearable.
  38. 3 likes
    So, Mid and Control Sword lose to PDK. Control and Mid Blood lose to Aegis. Should we nerf Aegis? The fact that PDK is more popular now doesn't matter. It has counters (e.g. Storm Haven, Atomeme), so I don't think it should be nerfed because your favorite class is weak against that. Otherwise they should nerf all top tier classes like they did in WD. In this case, Dragon and Sword. And I mean, nerf to the ground.
  39. 3 likes
    Yeah spamming skellies and Zombies is almost impossible in blood
  40. 3 likes
    My thoughts as someone who's been playing CCGs since the mid-90s, if you want to get into theoretical deckbuilding concepts, I strongly recommend reading some of the early MtG strategy articles. They are what laid the foundation for how we think about Magic and pretty much all similar games, including SV. Although they aren't 100% applicable, their core concepts are something worth learning for everyone looking to build their own decks. Schools of Magic by Robert Hahn Tempo and Card Advantage by Eric Taylor The Philosophy of Fire by Mike Flores Clear the Land and the Fundamental Turn by Zvi Mowshowitz The Metagame Clock by Leon Workman* As for the specifics of what you wrote, 1) Your definition of combo is only half of the picture. Seraph + countdown reducers is most definitely a combo. So is Spawn + Azazel or any other combination of 2-3 cards that just wins the game. This style has been around since the beginning of Magic with Channel + Fireball and seen there as recently as a few years ago in Copycat and Splinter Twin decks. Mostly these are meme decks in SV, with the exception being the aforementioned Seraph. What you describe is engine combo, the other half of the equation. That style first emerged in the mid/late 90s with the advent of the ProsBloom deck which traded lands on board and cards in hand for mana via Squandered Resources and Cadaverous Bloom. It then traded that mana for more cards in hand with Prosperity, put more lands out with Natural Balance, traded those in for even more mana and so on and so forth until it eventually pointed a lethal Drain Life at the opponent's face. This type of deck exists in SV in the form of DShift, and Roach where you have a lot of redundant cards that achieve a similar purpose. Face rush decks, while you can think of them as a sort of combo, are more accurately described by the Philosophy of Fire. Each card is worth X damage and your ultimate goal is to count to 20 with them. 2) Tempo and mana have a strong correlation, yes, but aren't exactly interchangeable. Tempo is better thought of as time advantage, and more specific to SV, board advantage. It's basically "Can I deploy my threats faster than my opponent can play their own or deal with mine?". If the answer is yes, you have favorable tempo. It's difficult to define, but you know it when you see it. Something like Tribunal is actually poor tempo if your opponent still retains board advantage, since they can continue to pressure you and potentially kill you before the back half triggers. 3) Pretty much yes. A curve isn't so much "I want to play these specific cards on these specific turns every game." That's just not realistic. It's more a distribution of casting costs that gives you the highest probability of efficiently spending your mana on every turn. Last month's neutral decks were a perfect demonstration of that concept. Ideally you went 1-2-3-Alice. It didn;t much matter what the specific 1, 2, and 3 drops were, just that you made them. That 1-2-3 curve was so important that almost 40% of some decks were made of 2-drops. *The specific metagame clock of MtG is almost **** backwards from SV's, but the concept is applicable. I've seen one for Hearthstone that looks a lot like one for SV would.
  41. 3 likes
    As far as Sword in WD, it wasn't tier 1 until the final month. Month 1 there was a one deck metagame where only Alice Blood mattered. Then they nerfed Alice Blood good and hard and also nerfed Ramp Dragon and Aegis "for no reason." The following month had a stable metagame of Midrange Shadow, Aggro Blood and Alice Rune. Then that was apparently too much variation so they nerfed Midrange Shadow, all forms of Blood, and Alice Rune. This created a new metagame where tier 1 was just three flavors of Alice deck: Haven, Sword, and Rune. The playrate of Alice decks was always in that order: Haven, Sword, Rune. The winrates went up and down slightly. There was one week where Alice Sword had a win percentage that is 0.2% higher than Alice Haven, so of course Fangore is cherry picking that data point because that is how he rolls. For comparison, Alice Haven's playrate was more than 50% higher than Alice Sword's that week. Alice Haven was the undisputed top deck of the third cycle of Wonderland Dreams. No one is even discussing it now because both of its signature Legendaries were nerfed on the last day of the expansion. But any claims that Haven didn't have the top deck in WD month 3 are not only wrong, they are ridiculous.
  42. 3 likes
    Now you know the feeling of Dragon players when they tried to ramp and see the opponent play t2 Conscription into t3 Frog into t4 White General. You knew it was GG even before evo turns. Every deck has difficult matchups. Every class has difficult matchups. During TotG Forest has been dumpster tier because Shadow was so strong, and wide, sticky boards (maybe with Wards thanks to Death's Breath) have been the bane of Forest since standard. I managed to keep a positive winrate with the class, nonetheless. It took quite a lot of effort, and techs. You are complaining that PDK Dragon is an auto loss for midrange Sword, but have you ever thought that midrange Sword could be an auto loss to other decks? Then what? Should we nerf it?
  43. 3 likes
    So I've been playing a modified version of @jpants 's list in Masters unranked today, and it's been fun. I didn't want to spam his thread with my videos, but you should refer to it in the Haven sub if you like the list. The original list had Turn 6 or later Aether pull Ancient Lion Spirit for consistent board control. This version uses Aether as a variable trigger, for Spirit on 6, but that x 1 Heresy's Avatar hidden in the deck on Turn 8, and Moon in every other instance for a 3/6 storm with self-heals. The 3rd Aether is theoretical, I only own 2 copies currently. The plan is to play as Control Haven, play a 8/8 threat on Turn 8, and then abuse that mechanic to play overpowered amulets or a reduced-CD Seraph the next turn. My nickname for this version is "Hoshi ni Negai wo", wish upon a star ... because you play some cards, draw, and then pray to our beautiful Lady Aether ... who pulls out some major Heresy (overlook this bit), and that enables your prayers to become victory the next turn. @Othello @Morrigan @Alexx55 you should definitely look at the thread in the Haven sub. @cypherhalo You wanted to know earlier today why Staircase is so OP? Well here, observe how fast I'm able to proc it between trades/AoE in the first match. It's also a fun deck to watch for you all you Swordies, probably. @fangore It's been a rough couple of months, but I'm glad you seem to be enjoying SV at least somewhat recently. It seems Shadow/Haven mains are a rarity nowadays, so I'm looking forward to making some decks to share too. @zzMedVeDzz I hope this answers your question empirically about whether Aether is a decent choice to vial. Sorry for the music choices . The results today (1 or 2 may have been quick concedes by Turn 3 though). Oh wait, is that ... someone we know I met accidentally? @rpgmaniac I think I met you on Masters unranked today? If so, it was a good game ... my perspective is replay #2 down below. I must flicked the mouse too fast, because I didn't attack with that Holy Falcon ... also sorry for the Moon drop, I've never drawn both Aethers before so I wanted to know if it'd work properly. EDIT: videos seem to have resolution issues, I'll be back in a few minutes.
  44. 3 likes
  45. 3 likes
    Agree with Dane here. Neutral cards were less used before WD because there got very little synergy with the classes mechanic. Sword just ignored neutral because there is no commander-officer in neutral. Blood ignored neutral because it had no interaction with the leader defense, and so on, with the exception of a selected few. Gobu Mage and Feena are used in forest because of the synergy with Roach, Healing Angel is used in Haven because of the synergy with Elena, etc. I don't see Ouro and Snow White as a pre-emtive nerf (although I think Snow White nerf is unjust). Rather, it looks like they just clean up the mess they made when they push crafts too far. I support most nerf they did, even if they looked stupid and made meta worse, because it's necessary to keep power level of cards in check. They just happened at the wrong time. They could do all of those nerf in a single release, but that would make more people think there is something wrong with the game. I also disagree that the card change must solely come from balance perspective. I've read an article from Mark Rosewater and I agree with him in one thing, people play games because they're fun. Balance can make the game fun, but it's not the only reason. For example, if there was a deck with 50% win rate, but a large number of its win comes from god-hand draw that can win on turn 3. This deck shouldn't exists for long because it causes a bad gaming experience. This means that although I support their nerf, the August nerf was poorly done because it made playing game a boring experience as you face the same 1-2-3-Alice sequence about 1/3 of the games you play. Let's see what SFL will bring us. I hope Cy learn the mistakes and they don't need to clean up the mess by mass-nerf cards as a last resort again. TL;DR - I support the changes that bring fun to the game, even if they don't come from the balance perspective. Although, I don't agree with all the nerf they did, I understand their points.
  46. 3 likes
    "The journey ends here "
  47. 3 likes
    Actually, I believe that data at the brink is uniquely the most important. There's no point referencing a meta that resembles the first weeks of Alice Blood, which saw one deck reach almost 50% of ladder, and other decks scrambling to tech specifically against it. Similarly, if Aegis Haven ever started becoming oppressive, we'd have useless data. This is because at that point, the deck's effect on the meta is no longer on the numbers - it's on the meta itself, which it has warped by its presence. There's an inflection point where the winrate of a massively powerful deck starts to revert, because other decks specifically counter it. But that hides the fact that all other decks that can't, have already disappeared. It's like an imaginary Aegis Haven meta. After 1 week, we'd see Aegis Haven's WR revert to ~50% or lower, since we'd suddenly see a 30% composition of DS Rune on ladder. But does that mean that Aegis Haven is any less restrictive on other decks? Probably not. It's just that Tempo Forest, Control Blood, and all the other decks that cannot deal with it are all absent already. Currently you can cite that Neutral Sword hasn't warped the meta, because it has a reasonable winrate. But that hides the fact that its existence over multiple weeks of WD have already conditioned all the decks that can't handle its tempo to leave. There's a hint, in the fact that the only true control decks in this meta are Control Nep, and Control Blood, both of which are equipped with the heals + walls to handle Sword. There's no Wolf Bolt option there, because a White Wolf on Turn 8 will usually die to the Levin Saber double-tap, and Will of the Forest doesn't kill a Neutral Sword board after a Council on curve. It's not DS Rune that's forced Wolf Bolt to leave. DS Rune could never oppress the remainder of ladder with a sufficiently reasonable winrate to justify a 15% composition or higher, which would threaten Wolf Bolt properly. But Neutral Sword is a deck with that kind of potential.
  48. 3 likes
    Ways to save this game: Nerf based on data ONLY and ignore whiners
  49. 3 likes
    I have my one minigame: I concede before he attacks: I win I cant concede: I loose. I think I have over 90% winrate in the minigame, just concede when you hear "sky"... and dont wait for: "knights, prepare for battle."
  50. 3 likes
    Found this nice graphic showing all the revealed cards so far. Not a lot to go.