• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Community Reputation

236 Excellent

About Jack42

  • Rank
    Goblin Slayer

Recent Profile Visitors

1,008 profile views
  1. For those of you who don't know, Lords of the Fallen also had scummy dlc. Edit: It's like the previous game from the developer was a really poorly done cash grab with a scummy dlc policy to try and cash in on the popularity of a far superior game that plays somewhat similarly...... but a lot lot better. <- It's not that i'm not willing to give them a chance. ..... I'm just not willing to give them a chance on anything within a couple months of launch day.
  2. Have either of you actually played Lords of the Fallen? I mean.... have either of you actually spent $20 to sit down and play Lords of the Fallen? Do that. Or don't do that. You really shouldn't do that. I have to defend that game because I spent money on it, but I still haven't finished it and never will. I do not think you all fully understand how bad that game messed up the actual combat formula. Like...... it's something where you literally have to play it to understand how wrong it is. It just feels completely, utterly, fantastically WRONG in fundamental ways. I simply don't trust the developer to do a good job. This is one of those games where I'm going to wait a couple months and maybe consider it if it gets shining reviews. Anything less than a 85% metacritic though and I'm simply not touching it ever. There are plenty of games on the market where I can walk though metal corridor environments and beat things with an iron bar, chainsaw, whatever, etc. Edit: I'm not just talking about the base game either. If there's any microtransactional bs I'm out. The game has to be a freaking masterpiece before I'm willing to try it at all. That's how bad the spiritual predecessor is. Edit: Reconsidering..... make that a 90% metacritic.
  3. I don't know what you are talking about. This expansion is horrible. I mean if you open 700 packs and can do anything you want the expansion is great, but for everyone else it's basically a massive rip-off I refuse to spend money on. There is no way this has been a net positive for player numbers. Between the EU price hike, the natural price increase due to more full expansions per year, and frankly the fact that you can't play any of the new decks without legendaries; I frankly don't see how anyone could see this expansion as a huge success for the health of the game. All it's going to do is convince more people that the game is too **** expensive to try and keep up with. Edit: I personally quit playing the game and haven't looked back since the 3rd day of the expansion. I'm at the point where my entertainment expenses can go suck it. I barely played at all in both Karazhan and MSOG metas, and I can't be bothered to log in and play in the Un'goro meta given the current state of the game. I refuse to send more time and money after bad.
  4. The giant gets buffed plenty. It's frequently an 8/8 and bigger is rarer but not unheard of. There sometimes just isn't a point to playing any sigils on turns 4-6.
  5. I do not think a deck that can't aggressively go 1-2-3-4 drop is a decent aggressive deck. Your deck has no offensive 1-drop, no offensive 3 drop and basically no 3 drop to speak of, and is running 6 cards that assume you are going to go past turn 6. <- This is not aggressive. Aggro decks don't run board wipes, because basically if they lose tempo they've pretty much lost anyways. A really expensive card that wipes the board but then gives my opponent a chance to play stuff before I do is not something I would want to run in an aggressive deck. Edit: Queen Medb evolved is a 6/7. Either your opponent kills her immediately and there is no downside to playing it, or you have a freaking 6/7 on the board.
  6. The last time I played this seriously trying to make it work I used this deck: 3x Goblin 3x Wiser Merman 3x Scrap Iron Smelter 3x Unica 3x Levi 3x Dwarf Alchemist 3x RH Ritual 3x Grimnir 3x Mage of Nightfall 3x Queen Medb 3x Halo Golem 2x P Rune 2x DoD 3x Hulking Giant I think it's bad, but I just tried it again and went 3-0 against D-Shift (going 2nd), Aggro Blood (going 2nd), and Aggro Shadow (going 1st) so meh. Might as well share while we are sharing.
  7. I remebered what I wanted to say. @Kae tokiha Why no Queen Medb?
  8. I don't like Commence Experiment :(. I fully understand why it's being run here but I don't like it. <- That's my first gut reaction. If I was going to try it I would do: -1x Commence Experiment -3x Giglamesh -2x Calamitous Curse +3x Goblin +3x Mage of Nightfall ^ I am just theorycrafting out loud. I obviously can't say much of value here. But the deck doesn't have a 1 drop slot or a 3 drop slot and my second inclination in an aggressive deck is to try to fix that.
  9. I obviously missed this last sentence in the wall of text saying why Dirt Rune has lots of problems. <- I am sorry.
  10. 26 games. The deck literally went 14-12. I won all but 2 of my non Haven non Dragon matchups and lost all but 1 of my Haven and Dragon matchups. Edit: Actually if I remember right the deck went 14-13 and I ran into multiple Master players. I DID NOT HAVE A HIGH WIN RATE. You can't auto lose to Dragon and Haven and have a decent win rate.
  11. Behold my deck: 3x Crafty Warlock 3x Dwarf Illusionist 3x Teachings of Creation 3x Red-Hot Ritual 3x Grimnir, War Cyclone 3x Price of Magic 3x Remi and Rami, Witchy Duo 3x Halo Golem 3x Alchemist's Workshop 3x Goblinmount Demon 1x Ancient Alchemist 3x Sun Oracle Pascale 3x Hulking Giant 3x Calamitous Curse I demand to know everything I am doing wrong. In excruciating and humiliating detail. In triplicate. Chop chop.
  12. ^ See, this is why I think the deck is decent against 5 classes, and you think it sucks as a whole. Obviously something is working for me, while something is certainly not working for you. If Magic Illusionist was a great card, you would be able to play it and have a good win rate.
  13. I think we are talking about two different decks. ^ We obviously disagree over Price of Magic because we are playing different lists, and I think Pascale is the same way. I think I get more wins from Pascale than Hulking Giant, which is why I dispute statements like this: I obviously don't consider this to be that hard. I don't consider it to be an on curve turn 5 play that often either, but I don't think it's that hard..... Especially "and you need a sigil". <- I'm more worried about being unable to play an Earth Sigil card because of too many sigils than I am about having one on board. Edit: The aggressive list completely utterly irredeemably sucks. I don't know why cards like Magic Illusionist and Mage of Nightfall got released but they are complete utter crap.
  14. It has been my experience that people play a deck Pascale is bad in and then say it's trash. Like your example. If you are playing Magic Illusionist, AT ALL, you shouldn't be playing Pascale. Period. Pascale is a bit of a package kind of card, not just something you slot in and call it trash. You need to make a more midrangey deck with things like Goblinmount Demon.
  15. I don't think this is the case. But I think it's got SOME, note the operative word is some, merit. If I go second and I play Blackened Scripture into Grimnir into Priest of the Cudgel into Ancient Lion Spirit into Themis's Decree into blah blah blah as a Haven player, the aggro shadow player probably doesn't have a chance to win that game. But my curve goes up to 9 (sometimes more) mana and is more spread out. Playing 1 drop, 2 drop, Prince Catacomb going first is much more likely to happen than any comparable defensive curve. If you are playing Sword going second you basically HAVE to draw Whole-Souled Swing. If you are playing Blood you really need to draw your 2 drop removal. If you are playing Forest or Haven or Dragon you really need to draw... well not very specific cards but general good answers for a few turns in a row. Getting a good curve as shadowcraft is not this kind of hyperbolic auto-win, but it's much easier to get a good curve as shadowcraft than it is to get good answers, due to just the sheer math behind why aggro decks are more consistent than non-aggro decks.