FrankTrollman

Members
  • Content count

    955
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

Community Reputation

243 Excellent

1 Follower

About FrankTrollman

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Shadowverse Information

  • Shadowverse User ID
    940660917
  1. Not Coming Back

    A couple of weeks ago I decided that I was going to take time off from Shadowverse. I felt that the decks I'd had the most fun playing with in the preceding months had all been nerfed. The decks that remained simply were not as fun and I was not having as much fun with the game. And further, I felt that these nerfs had happened not because the decks in question were "overpowered," but simply because they were popular. That Cygames was literally and specifically going out of its way to stomp on decks that a large number of people liked to play simply because a large number of people liked to play them. That it was actively selecting for decks that I, and by extension a lot of other people, had fun playing and destroying them on purpose. In short, it seemed like the Cygames methodology was virtually guaranteed to make the game progressively less fun to play with each tweak and any future bright spots of entertainment would appear only by accident and those in turn would be swiftly stamped out by the endless nerf cycle. I said at the time I'd come back in December to look at things and see if there was something that might make me come back to the game that might be fun to play. And honestly: Absolutely Not. The latest nerf cycle is so much worse than what I imagined. The top winrate deck of the top playrate faction is left unscathed, while the historically high play-rate D-Shift is nerfed despite having a winrate of only 47.3%! Ramp Dragon has a winrate of 47.4%, but it's historically high playrate, so it gets the nerfstick hard! Midrange Shadow has managed to crawl up to a winrate of 51.2%, which is just a little bit above water, and it get's a gentle little shove as well. The idea that any of these decks were too good and needed to be nerfed is ridiculous on its face. But they were played relatively frequently. Obviously some people were having fun playing the game, and Cygames absolutely cannot stand people playing this game for fun. It's clear that not only was my feeling that the game was getting less fun spot on at the time, but that the rate and absurdity of Cygame's repeated raining on the parade of anyone left having a good time has accelerated to ridiculous levels in the time since. I am not going to come back to playing or theory crafting about this game. I am uninstalling this game. Cygames has completely lost the plot, and it's clear that they aren't going to get better. They have been getting worse. They are going to continue getting worse.
  2. Taking a Break

    That's exactly the problem though. I wasn't playing the 1-5 "Fast" Alice Rune, I was playing the 2-10 "Slow" Alice Rune. AKA Ginger Rune. Enormous fun, high winrate, low playrate because it's a wallet deck that costs nearly 50k in vials. But because it shares a lot of golds and legendaries with the two month Tier 1 "Fast" Alice Rune deck, it got absolutely murdered in a series of nerfs to Falise and then Alice. I got in on the ground floor with PDK Before It Was Cool. I was the first person I know of to run Staircase in the deck. As in, I literally put Staircase in the deck because I didn't quite have all the cards used in the Grandmaster proof of concept deck. Staircase rapidly became stock for PDK, but I was certainly the first person on this board to say anything about it. And of course PDK got double hammered and became essentially unplayable. Cygames keeps breaking my toys. Not because they are unbeatable decks or because they don't lose to other Tier 1 decks, but simply because people like playing those decks. I just am not having fun anymore.
  3. Taking a Break

    I found that since the nerfing of Alice Rune and then PDK that none of the other decks I can play competitively hold my interest for long. I did fine for a while with Aggro Shadow or Aggro Blood, but the thought of actually grinding master points with those decks does not appeal. I guess I could try to make a new deck, but after my favorite deck got trash binned by overzealous nerfing two months in a row, my heart is absolutely not in it. I just can't muster the give-a-damn when I feel like any sand castles I build are just going to get kicked over by Cygames at the end of the month. The nerf cycle is exhausting, and I'm exhausted. I am going to take a break from the game for a bit. Maybe I'll feel different in December. Maybe I won't.
  4. So it's OK for a 3 PP amulet to give you 6 PP of bonus value the turn it's played and 8 PP of value the turn after, but if you put a 1-attack body on it look out dudes, OP! I cannot accept that. Meme Flute lives in literally exactly the same slot as PDK. They both require you to be playing essentially the same deck. A deck which before PDK came out (and after PDK was nerfed) was classed as a joke deck. Ramping to overflow and playing low-cost cards is deeply madly embarrassingly anti-synergistic. Playing a turn 2 Oracle and then playing two 2-cost followers on T3 is strictly worse than playing a two cost follower on turn 2 and 3. It's a tempo loss and a value loss because you're down one card and one of your 2-drops is delayed by 1 turn. Amulets and followers are both plays to the board. If you play a follower with very limited combat abilities whose main power is that they are hard to remove, why can't we compare them to an amulet? An amulet just has 1-less attack and is even harder to remove, so that seems extremely comparable. Xulin Value Theory is simply wrong. It cannot predict why Meme Flute is a bad card, because the drawback of Meme Flute is a deck building constraint that heavily limits possible synergy, and when it does its hand transformation that gives you mad stacks of "value" it also cuts your card drawing engine off right when you're about to spend the rest of the game trying to play 4 cards a turn. PDK could effectively bridge from the early tempo loss turns to the end game storm haymakers of the deck, but it didn't do so by making more value, it did so by synergizing with the deck's preferred playstyle better.
  5. I'm still waiting for you to tell me how much value Meme Flute is worth. It's real simple. It replaces all of your cards of cost 1, 2, and 3 with Hellflame Dragons. A Hellflame Dragon is exactly a Jeno, but costs 2. Jeno is a card that sees play and is very clearly "worth" 4 PP as opposed to something like Goliath which "costs" 4 PP but never sees play and is clearly not worth it. So Meme Flute gives you 2 PP worth of bonus value for every low cost card in your hand and every low cost card you draw. Is that too much value for a 3 PP card? Now obviously there are reasons that Meme Flute sees zero play. It's actually really bad. But it has the same cost, ideal play turn, and deck building constraints as pre-nerf PDK and gives bonus value for all the same cards (and more, because Meme Flute works on non-DC cards as well as spells and amulets). And your "card value theory" paints it as a brokenly powerful card. If your theory can't square the value of Meme Flute and the reality that the card is trash, your theory has no predictive value.
  6. To all of that I say: So What? The question of whether you can kill a PDK for less than the mana it takes to play PDK is an arbitrary one. The answer is "Yes" but that doesn't matter. PDK is a a card played in Overflow, nearly always on Turn 6 or above. So the answer to PDK and the board next to it can be something like Themis. And that's one of the reasons that Storm Haven was one of the good counters to PDK (the other being that you didn't give a damn whether PDK killed your falcons because you already got face damage out of them before they became targetable by PDK). "You can't spend a single card and equal or less mana to kill PDK!" is a complete cannard. It doesn't matter whether you can do a 1-for-1 on PDK because PDK never comes alone and she doesn't get played until sweeper options are available. But it's also false. There are in fact cards that cost equal or less PP to PDK that trade with PDK. You can even play Elf Twin Assault and kill two PDKs at once!
  7. We've been over this. If it was super important to you that you hard removed PDK for less PP than PDK cost, those options did exist. That was not the most efficient way to fight the PDK deck, but it definitely was an option. The most efficient means of beating PDK was to win the game on turn 6 and then just not even care if they had a hand full of PDK fodder and a Jabberwocky.
  8. Aggro Sword wasn't good? It was a Tier 1 deck. It killed Rowan 55% of the time when Rowan brought a PDK deck to the table. How is that not a good counter? Sometimes the best counter is just killing the other player and winning the game before they can do whatever their victory dance is. In the case of combo decks or Aegis, that's the only counter. You don't value trade PDK, not because it's like Aegis or Wolf Bolt and you literally can't, but just because there are few ways to come out ahead in trading for your opponent's PDK and a lot of ways to kill the player before PDK can make much impact.
  9. PDK is actually the perfect example of why your methodology is total crap and if you actually applied it honestly you would be completely incapable of giving any real answers. Yes, let's look at pre-nerf PDK: It Costs 3 PP It is a build-around that requires you to fill your deck with low-cost followers and ramp cards despite the lack of inherent synergy between those two parts of the deck. It's basically a dead card when played on curve and only does its cool thing when played after you hit overflow. The cool effect is that you get extra value from low-cost followers in your hand and get to do a lot of damage straight from the hand to enemy followers until you run out of cheap cards in your hand. Now, how many cards before PDK filled that card slot? How much "value" did they have? The answer of course is ONE. There was ONE CARD in all of Shadowverse that fit that description. It's Meme Flute. Now let's be clear: PDK is better than Meme Flute. If you do a line by line comparison of the two, there are a lot of ways that Meme Flute is better and there are a lot of ways that PDK is better. Meme Flute turns cards into Hellflame Dragons, which are 2 mana 4/3s with Rush. That's more anti-folower damage than PDK gives you and if you are allowed to keep the board it's more face damage the next turn as well. And with Meme Flute you keep the hand full of Hellflame Dragons even if the flute gets destroyed, which synergizes with your own Bahamuts in a pretty slick fashion. But PDK very critically does not remove the abilities of the cheap followers it boosts, so you can fill your deck with Dragon Summoners, Ivory Dragons, and Matildas which put extra cards in your hand so you don't run out of gas. The ceiling isn't as high, but the deck's consistency is just much better. PDK is the better card. So what possible standing would you have to say that being better than Meme Flute makes a card be too good? How is that something that makes sense as a thing to say? You only have two data points: Meme Flute and PDK. It is equally valid to say that Meme Flute provides insufficient value as it is to say that PDK provides too much value. If A >> B, so what? Why would we decide that the reference point of choice is B rather than A? And if you try to make an argument about abstract value and compare to cards that are independently good in decks that aren't full of 2-drop followers and ramp cards, I'm going to laugh at you. And while I'm laughing at you, I'm going to ask you to run your same calculations for Meme Flute and tell me how much over valued that 3 mana do nothing amulet is. And then I'm going to laugh at you some more, because Meme Flute is already called Meme Flute because its deck is Meme Tier and always has been.
  10. Counterpoint: Rotations Will Be Awesome

    Your opening hand has an average of 0.675 cards that can be played before turn 3. So... good luck with that.
  11. PDK had decks it lost to. Decks that had similar overall winrates like Aggro Sword and Aggro Shadow, as well as decks whose winrates were slightly lower but still quite good like Storm Haven. What is your definition of "too strong?" You can't make claims like that without a baseline of comparison. What about the pre-nerf PDK deck's performance is too strong? Put down some numbers and we can talk. If you just stamp your foot and say it "feels" too strong or some similar horse pucky, I'm going to assume you're this guy: Aggro Sword was a reasonable deck pick in the month that PDK was allowed. Similar week on week winrates and a positive winrate against PDK. Also you ran up rank points faster because the games were shorter. Nevertheless, PDK had a much higher playrate despite being not as "good" in a raw numbers sense. I submit that people did not migrate en masse from PDK to Aggro Sword because PDK was a more fun deck. Should we be destroying decks because players like playing those decks? Really?
  12. Counterpoint: Rotations Will Be Awesome

    I think you're being entirely too complacent about the Turn 5 issue. You can't get healing off of Sybil on turn 5 unless you play a ramp card on turn 2, 3, or 4. Without that healing, you probably just die to aggro. Similarly, you can't play anything 8-cost on turn 6 without having ramped at least once before turn 5. Going from 2 before-turn 5 ramp cards to only 1 drops the chances of you getting a ramp card you can play in the first four turns to something close to a coin flip even if you ditch every card in every starting hand that doesn't have Oracle in it. Losing an extra copy of a turn 6 card isn't all that big a deal because you have 6 turns to draw into it. But losing a second chance at your turn 2 play is a very big deal for deck consistency. Ramping on curve currently requires that you hit one of 6 different cards by turn 3. After rotation it will require you hit one of 3 cards in your deck by turn 2. That's... much less reliable.
  13. Shadowlog Report November 5th

    Personally, I find repeatedly lying to people after you've been called on it and had the numbers quoted to you to be pretty offensive. If I point out that someone said something that is flatly untrue, I expect them to walk away with their tail between their legs or ****ing apologize. I do not expect them to come back to me with another lie right away like you just did. So yes, I'm very upset with you. Because you are lying to me after I told you that I knew the thing you are lying about isn't true. What is up with that? What do you gain by being such an unreliable person? You keep going back to play rate. The playrate argument for Aggro Sword is an absolute slam dunk. Aggro Sword is the #7 most-played deck in the format. There is absolutely no way to claim that a deck played more frequently than all but six other decks in the format is not played enough to be Tier 1. That argument doesn't make any sense, and it would be embarrassing even if you weren't repeatedly own-goaling yourself by claiming it is played less than various other decks that it is factually played more often than. As I said in the very first reply: the only discussion to be had is winrate. It has a winrate of 52.4%. If you want to say that decks with a winrate below 53% are Tier 2, that's fine. If you want to claim that a winrate above 52% is Tier 1 reasonable for a deck with a high playrate, that is also fine. For comparison, RoB Daria's winrate was sometimes as low as 52.5%, did you consider Daria to be Tier 1 or not in the second week of February?
  14. Shadowlog Report November 5th

    Those are incredible shifting goalposts you got there. Also you're still wrong. "Aggro Sword" 3894 plays "Face Sword" 3593 plays Total for Aggro Sword: 7487 plays Storm Haven: 7217 plays Last I checked, 7487 is a bigger number than 7217 whether your arithmetic is simple or not. Aggro Sword is played more than Storm Haven. Also there currenty no decks that don't have a lot of bad matchups, so I don't know where you were going with that last bit. But basically you're just wrong. You can either make the claim that 52.4% winrate isn't good enough to count as Tier 1 and is instead merely a strong Tier 2, or you can shut the hell up. This thing you're doing where you keep claiming that various random decks that factually have lower numbers than it does actually have higher numbers if you use Imperial Dane Logic instead of looking at the friggin report you linked in the first page is hella dumb. It insults our intelligence for you to make these ridiculous factually inaccurate claims over and over again.
  15. Counterpoint: Rotations Will Be Awesome

    500 cards is about 65 cards per faction. That's incredibly small. The idea that you could maintain a diverse meta with multiple playable decks per faction out of 65 cards is laughable. Each faction will have between zero and two playable decks and the quality differences between those decks will be massive. That's just the inevitable result of really small card pools like this. Probably two factions will be essentially unplayable. Smart money is currently on Haven and Dragon for that honor. Probably two factions will have two playable decks. Smart money is on Forest and Sword. The other factions will have one deck. And of those ~7 decks, we will end up having like two Tier 1 decks, two Tier 2 decks, and 3 Bad decks. Does that seem like a vibrant meta to you? To me it sounds like cancer.