ScrotieMcB

Members
  • Content count

    290
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Community Reputation

70 Excellent

About ScrotieMcB

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Shadowverse Information

  • Shadowverse User ID
    184394419
  1. I think there is a vocal group in the forums that is simply against OTKs and heavy burst. I've never counted myself among that group and oppose them. That said, a OHKO out of nowhere isn't good. This doesn't mean OHKOs are inherently bad — "out of nowhere" are key words here. Face damage should be telegraphed proportional to damage dealt, with appropriate countermeasures to avoid it (even if the only such countermeasure is "defeat opponent before the kaboom"). I know this is a cross-genre example, but my favorite example of this concept is the Berserker from action RPG Diablo 3. Berserkers have a very slow wind-up to attack, so slow that their attacks are very easily dodged. But they hit like a Mack truck, doing far more damage in a single hit than pretty much anything that isn't a boss monster. Your choices are to kill them before the blow lands, or step out of the way; you probably only die if you're asleep at the wheel. These are fair counterplay choices and I've never heard any complaints about Berserker burst damage from a Diablo 3 player. This concept of telegraphing applies to CCGs as well as ARPGs. I don't have any problem with OHKOs from decks like D-Shift where the wind-up is long and the counterplay clear (in this case, kill D-Shift first). But the point isn't the amount of damage or even the turn it comes down, so much as it's the relationship between the amount and quality of the threat, in relation to the telegraph preceeding it. The ideal design sets up difficult, debatable — and therefore interesting — choices. Do I try to dodge a hit my opponent is telegraphing, or do I begin my own offense by starting to telegraph my own? Do I follow through on a telegraph already set up, or defend against a new threat my opponent might bring next turn? The more balanced these types of choices are against each other, the more interesting the game becomes. I feel one big problem with Shadowverse is that removing followers is too strong and versatile, making Storm and direct damage too versatile. Another way of possibly saying the same thing: Storm and direct damage don't have good counters. A lot of this is because the follower removal is strong against Ward followers, so it makes nice setup for Storm offense. What if the best follower removal said "follower without Ward" (or "follower with Ward")? It might make decisions a lot tougher, in both deck building and piloting.
  2. 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.
  3. @Ellezard Patron Warrior did nothing wrong. The nerfs to it were foolish.
  4. Hmm. Seems like we both made mistakes. Chance of not finding in first 3 cards: 37/40*36/39*35/38 Neither of us got this wrong. Chance of not finding during 3-card redraw: 34/37*33/36*32/35 You got this wrong because you incorrectly assumed one can redraw cards one just elected not to keep. Chance of not finding during draws from first 3 turns: 34/37*33/36*32/35 I got this wrong because I incorrectly assumed one cannot draw cards one elected not to keep during redraw. Total chance of not drawing: 37/40*36/39*35/38*34/37*33/36*32/35*34/37*33/36*32/35 1-(34!/31!)^2/(40!/34!)=53.4%
  5. I did say "estimate." I said about 60% chance of Catacomb by my estimate, actual chance is 54.5% assuming full redraw commitment, so my estimate is off by about 5%. (I don't know where you got 52% from.) The reason it's off is because the chance of drawing 2 or 3 Catacomb is about 5%, and my estimation method doesn't handle multidraw properly — it is off by P(draw 2 of card)+2*P(draw 3 of card)+...+(n-1)*P(draw n of card).
  6. Most games simply don't make it to turn 10, or are decided well before that. Because of this, I consider Grimnir to be basically just a Neutral 2/3 Ward except in Dragon. Funny thing is, even without Enhance, that's pretty darn playable; even without Enhance, this thread would probably still exist.
  7. You should liquify bronze you don't want first, then silvers you don't want, then golds you don't want. You should only liquefy legendaries if they're your fourth copy; at that point, animated or not is your call.
  8. Do they? Seems to me that if a deck that prefers going first pairs against a deck that prefers going second, the result is pretty balanced regardless of who goes first. The real issue to me seems to be the difficulty in having both of these types of decks competitively viable at the same time.
  9. Agree there. However, in the middle is design. Back in RoB, going second was better because Evolve was a very relevant keyword; now, it mostly isn't a relevant keyword, so going first is better. It's not exactly rocket science: good Evolve abilities add value to Evolution Points and raise the value of going second. Back in RoB I suggested removing the card advantage from going second, preferably by giving first player +1 card to start (four-card redraw). I still stand by that suggestion, because I like the Evolve keyword and want to see it in use. Cygames' current strategy of essentially culling the Evolve keyword from the game, expressed through TotG's design and the disappearance of tempo evolves from Take Two, did successfully mitigate the advantage of going second, but at the cost of a mechanic I enjoyed. I view these changes as regressive, not progressive. I will admit, though, that if you don't like the Evolve keyword then you could easily have the opposite view.
  10. The main reason no one used him was consistency. Only 3 activators in a deck isn't enough. Now that 3 different cards allow up to 9 activators per deck, Dealer is clearly worse than Belph and arguably completely cuttable, opting for Blood Moon instead... and I think he's definitely cuttable to 2 copies even when used, because Belph should play a kill role in redraw strategy. But you're being a little silly in assuming a Vengeance-activated, post-Belph leader can't be above 10 defense. And equally silly acting as if Spiderweb Imp and Grimnir don't exist (especially as Airjammer can pull Imps). I think decks need more than Storm followers like Albert to be favored against Vengeance Blood; instead they need Storm finishers to punish Belph activation AND early pressure to punish Blood Moon activation. I will readily admit both Sword and Forest can achieve said combination... but Dragon, not so much. I believe Vengeance Blood would be much more of a factor if Shadow wasn't surpressing its numbers.
  11. Mostly the former. TotG enabled Vengeance decks by allowing Vengeance to consistently self-enabled. Totally different deck now.
  12. @Ellezard I don't recall referring to Aggro Blood.
  13. I have never, and will never, buy into the idea that some play styles dominating the meta while others get pushed out is okay because the dominators "play fair". If something is truly winning then it obviously isn't that easy for every deck to tech around. The measure of metagame health should be the number of viable archetypes, not a subjective valuation of the " fairness" of a small number of viable archetypes — because the game should give play style options, not ram sanitized, politically correct gaming down the audience's throat. Also, kek at thinking Blood doesn't play wards.
  14. Did you mean sword or blood? I don't agree that midrange shadow winrate needs to be nerfed 8-10%, and I find the floating assumption very interesting. Why do you believe that? In any case, I think nerfing midrange shadow 3-5% would suffice.