Hey while I wait for the promised changes on reddit to happen, and for ladder to reset so I can climb to diamond again in a fresh meta let's talk about climbing theory.
My theory is pretty simple there are two ways to climb in digital ccgs:
1. Play the best decks better than everyone else whether it's thresh/Nasis or Arelia Azir or dragons or whatever works for you
- how do you play your deck better then everyone else? You dont just play your deck you play the opponents.
- here's an example my rogue overwhelm brew relies on two things high burst dmg, and lots and lots of vulnerable plays
- if you as Azir/Irelia always leave mana open for bounce when I have the attack token you can't loose valuable pieces to vulnerable plays
2. Build a deck that performs well in a certain meta, this sounds obvious but its also built on wrong assumptions.
- Doing well in a meta isn't about countering what is top tier that by definition is impossible
- It's about establishing unpredictable play patterns, and teching in unexpected options
- for example overwhelm decks don't run counters but when one of the best decks revolves around atrocity as a win con it is now one of your best cards because the opponent will assume you don't have it
And thats it really if you want to climb in legends or mtg arena or whatever digital ccg you want, you'll have to get good at one of these two methods.
If you're creative and easily bored from repetition like me I would choose to master option 2. If you're detailed oriented and highly competitive I would choose option 1.
Let me know which you gravitate towards.
You must be signed in to leave a comment. Sign in here.