I'll be honest, if I had decided to stay on hearthpwn, I really wouldn't care much for the posts talking about OOC. Similar to me having to choose here and if I saw folks going "oh hearthpwn is great now. We should go back!" There's just so much awkwardness between the two already that bringing it up in a signature or other feature just feels like ..well... trying to attack the site by drawing people to the other site. Though really, a thread going "Hey everyone, let's all go to Reddit" wouldn't be that great either. That's less declaring of what you guys should do and more just sharing my emotions and how I would perceive the situation, and perhaps a few other people as well.
We made a new home. The old home is around. OOC has a lot of building to do to get itself up to snuff. Hearthpwn has a lot of issues it needs to fix. The best thing for both is to let both live and for each to handle that business.
The public, like much of the internet, though is always 2 posts away from open warfare over SOMETHING. I can honestly see a few signatures or stray comments leading to some stupid war between OOC and hearthpwn. I'm saddened and understanding of them wanting to put a lid on it especially if some of the ones doing it probably are better off staying in OOC and talking heathstone than in hearthpwn talking about how bad the site has become.
That's my opinion on it so feel free to take it with a batch of salt. Myself I was considering keeping both but after hearing the drama I don't feel I could go to hearthpwn and treat it like a normal site, so I don't go there anymore. Maybe if things stabilize and everything calms down and we can reference each other over topics without old blood raging I might return. Otherwise , meh.
To each their own, but I will ask those who are still in hearthpwn: are you really helping to make the place into a good spot to post in or are your posts, well intentioned or not, causing more strife? REALLY look at them and decide whether it would be better to just stay here and talk about fun things, or go start up Hearthstone for a few games.
Or Magic.. we're also a magic site now right? So yeah, that too.
Wrote a long post but if you just want the highlights!
OMG LONG POST TL:DR SUMMARY!
Wow. Thank you. Read the whole thing. Really good.
I really enjoyed playing Mage to start with, it's very classic-RPG, but I'm not that excited with the big Summon-Four-Giants decks. I've been enjoying playing Hunter, Priest and Paladin. I'm not sure if Hunter is because rather than making my own deck, I used someone else's (so it was a well thought out deck). I've always liked playing healing/buffing RPG characters, which probably speaks to the priest/paladin draw.So that's definitely something for me to think about!
On side note, I also have a wild legendary: Shadowreaper Anduin - would you consider disenchanting that?
If it's mech hunter then you might have a thing for buff mechanics as Mechanic is basically a buffing mechanic that works. No worries if you are using someone else's deck, though it is good to try to understand WHY it works well as that sort of thing helps in makgn your own decks later.
As far as Shadowreaper... that's a hard one. On the one hand, I imagine he's still useful in Wild. On the other, it'll be a long time before you actually use Wild, and it's probably better to keep your standard cards than wild ones.
Try TRY to see if you can go without dusting him especially if you already have a deck that's working for you. But if you NEED the dust... yeah he's on the potential dust list.
And I'm guessing that Zilliax is for that mech hunter deck.
I really REALLY don't want to say this but .. if I was in a world where I could put Zilliax into a mech hunter deck and Shadowreaper dusting is what'll get me Zilliax.. I'd dust it. But mostly because I don't have Raza or anything that would make Reaper work and I never really cared about him anyway (during Frozen Throne I had the option to craft 2 death knights, neither went to Shadowreaper, and I'm still glad I chose that way).
Though first I would HIGHLY see if I could live without it. But yeah.. that would be a serious option.
Funny, I was expecting some unknown card with some insane mechanic that would be impossible to figure out. But no it's the card I've been using for a while already.
Mucky Shaman
A Big Shaman Deck created by
Dakarian. Last updated 4 years, 10 months ago
It's a 'big shaman' deck based around Muckmorpherand [Hearthstone Card (Eureka) Not Found]. The win condition is to drop threats that can't be ignored too often to be stopped.
Most of the early game is carried on controlling the board via Totemic and Hagetha's Sceme. You are also free to cast Feral Spirits and Lightning Storm as needed as your key turns are at 5 and both spells are 3 mana.
The first phase lies in hunting for Mucks and Eureka to drop threats down early. You don't need them to stick, but it's great if they can. Many decks are slow so they'll actually let you start the pain at 7 or 8 mana letting you combine them with ancestral/Big Bad voodoo. But usually you'll use them to grab tempo then maintain it enough for the late game when you can start dropping them normally.
The threats:
Exotic Mountseller: You have a lot of spells so Exotic throwing random 3 drop beasts means a very fast fill up of minions. She's also a 5/8 so honestly she can be a doomsday card by herself.
Big Bad Archmage: Big Bad's 6 drops are generally VERY nasty along with him being a 6/6 on his own. The nice thing is that they can be put down solo, meaning your opponent will be full board clearing your individual cards.
Al'Akir the Windlord: He doesn't stick well but 6 damage charge with divine shield is pretty damaging.
Walking Fountain: He's more defense than offense but 8 health out of the gate, the ability to kill multiple creatures at once, and each turn can throw 8 damage to the face.
The win condition comes from the fact that you have A LOT of these big boys coming. 2 Mucks turning into one of them, 2 Eureka's summoning copies of them, The minions themselves, 2 Ancestral Spirits to resummon, and two Big Bad voodoos to make 2 more threats as all of these guys are 7+.
That's 14 threats, many of them generating more threats on top and all can technically solo. You also get interesting interactions like Mountseller adding more threats while you Voodoo/Spirit her or Walking fountain+Spirit letting you kill 2 big boys or 4 midsized targets while gaining 16 health.
Tony you have reached an elevated state of Hearthstonery. I only like taking damage when I have the lethal in hand for next turn, or when they hit face while they should have eliminated this minion. I find it impossible to not feel anything when losing. Some losses are worse than others of course. On the other hand, when I win too easily with a deck (I recently won a couple of games very smoothly with some tempo/aggro mage variant) I get bored :)
I am flattered you consider it an elevated state! You could be right. Since I got in this mode I have been taking more risks in my decision making. I'm not sure how long this will last. Maybe it can last forever. I'd feel lucky. Like I said, I think taking more risks is helping me out
It actually does. Many of the major mistakes players make in hearthstone involve prioritizing what 'feels' better than what gives them the better chance. For example, many players, when faced with a choice of defending an attack that will kill them or taking a chance that may win the game, will opt to defend: 100% to succeed feels better than, say, a 20% chance to succeed. A pro though will ask "If I defend, how do I actually WIN afterwards." and realize that defending at that time will lead to just slowly losing as you never gain the advantage later on. Thus they will take the 20% chance over the slower loss and win 1 out of 5 games instead of losing every time.
That's called "playing to win vs playing not to lose" It's something you can only do if you are comfortable with losing, even though it actually leaves you winning more often.
It also lets you actually SEE your chances instead of FEEL them, which is important because we're..bad at feeling our chances. For example, studies have shown that losing $10 feels as bad as winning $20 feels good. Which means even though it's a good idea to take a coin flip chance between winning $20 and losing $15 your brain will see it as a bad deal. It's also why you can easily ignore the 10 wins you got in a row but get pissed over 3 losses.
(I know I felt that when I ran a deck tracker on some of my decks, lost a few with a particular deck, went to delete it out of frustration, and found I had a 10-3 win rate with it and just forgot about the earlier wins)
Just about everything from the mulligan to the deck choice to individual plays change once you can look at it logically rather than focus on feeling. That's not to say that feelings are bad. It's fine to be happy or angry at things. The question is just whether they are simply guiding you or if they've taken over. As I've had it put: your feelings should be in the car with you, but should not be the driver.
Wrote a long post but if you just want the highlights!
OMG LONG POST TL:DR SUMMARY!
-You can't get duplicate Legendaries. All other rarities will duplicate.
- Focus on deck design, not so much tier list. Find a deck you want to make. Make sure it's one you WANT to make and can make with just a few craftings, make sure you NEED those cards in that deck, then craft THOSE. Even Zilliax would be worthless if the decks you WANT to play don't really need him.
- Focus the priority NOT on class but on playstyle, and prioritize cards you wouldn't want to play even if it becomes good or gets buffed. Also aim for ones that are about to go away and try not to craft cards that are also about to go away unless you HAVE to. Classes change, cards change, but if you hate aggro, you'll probably always hate aggro.
- The less dusting and crafting you do to get what you need, the better. A deck that requires 1 legendary that makes you happy is MUCH better than one that requires 3.
If you want to know the meaning behind all that, read below.
Since Blizzard has decided to start buffing cards, it has become much more risky to dust clearly bad legendaries and epics. The most safe solution is to target a couple of classes that you dislike as general playstyle and use them has your "dust deposit", disenchanting only cards from them.
This is the best advice for a budget player. Choose classes you hate playing, and just plan to never ever play them. Disenchant all their stuff (except maybe legendaries, so you don't open those legendaries again later).
That's a really interesting point!
I thought it was random irrespective of what you already had? Are you less likely to get repeats?
I got 2x Magic Carpet in one pack a couple of days ago.
Legendaries can't duplicate. It will always give you one you don't have. The others ignore what you have.
Meanwhile I would highly advise NOT dusting entire classes. That's because as the sets change so do the playstyles of each class. Chances are you aren't really THAT devoted to the image of that particular hero and are instead in love with the playstyle they present and if you find that the deck you most want to play involves a class who've you've dusted down you're stuck. I know I hated Rogue back when it was a fully combo styled class. However, last year they've gone far more Tempo and reliant on battlecries or stealing mechanics, Thankfully I still had all of the cards I had collected so I could just craft the few things I needed to make those decks.
So don't aim on nuking the entire class. Instead aim for playstyles.
For example take Oblivitron. That card is meant for mech hunter decks. The idea is to be VERY sticky and annoying with mechs that keep summoning mechs that summon other mechs that combine with other mechs that summon mechs and..you get the point.
That card really isn't being used in hunter decks, not even the mech ones. But that can change either due to new sets, no strategies, or the card being buffed so that's not too reliable. HOWEVER!
1. The card has only 8 months to live, so even if it becomes hyper useful, you'll only have a few months to worry about it before it goes away from Standard. A VERY powerful tool budget players have is the "ignore it and let it go away" ability. I've gone through a lot of metas where That One Deck everyone played was NOT the one I made, so I stayed low, made the decks I wanted, and let rotation wipe the deck away. Or nerfs. That Druid nerf swarm in Rumble came at a great time for me.
2. The most important, do you even WANT to play a deck like what I posted? Does a hunter mech deck with sticky tempo cards interest you, or would you rather have something faster, like an aggro deck, or slower like a deck that throws out big boys? Or perhaps you like mechs but you're more interested in what Paladin can do? Thus even if hte deck becomes #1 in the ladder and Oblivitron is used in every deck in the world you would be bored out of your mind to play it.
THAT is the ultimate dust candidate. A card you don't WANT to use no matter how good or bad it is.
You can look at some of your other cards the same way. Carpet is a good card, but he's used for zoo styled decks; decks that throw lots of cheap stuff on the board. Is that even something you want to try out? If so then keep carpet. If not, then maybe you don't really need them?
Whatever you dust, do it VERY sparingly though. You hurt your collection every time you dust and craft something: effectively losing 3 cards for every 1 card you make. I'm not saying to NEVER dust but keep that in mind.
Myself I wouldn't craft legendaries based on a tier list ALONE. Instead I would look at decks I really REALLY want to make and look at what's in there. After all, Zilliax is worthless if the decks you want him for also require 3-5 other cards you can't craft, especially since he'll be gone next year. He's not going to make that Murloc Mage deck you use good enough either.
I'll put it another way, Zilliax won't let you make a Conjure's Calling mage if you don't have Conjure's Calling. Conjure's Calling mage, though, can live without Zilliax.
Make SURE you have good deck that you can almost craft. Look for others who have run decks like that and make sure it's something you find fun, or powerful, or whatever you are looking for in a deck. Also make sure there's not a version that DOESN'T use the card. I wanted to make a Spell Hunter deck last year and wondered if I needed Rhok'delar. I then found Firebat using the card and, when asked, said that it was the weakest part of the deck and not really needed. Thus I ended up making a spell hunter deck without it and did well with it.
Also make sure about that 'almost craft' as well. Last year I saw Shudderwock Shaman, loved it, crafted Shudderwock in a flash..then realized it needed 3 other legendaries I didn't have. Then I watched a lot of Shudderwock games and realized the deck wasn't interesting to me and Shudder really didn't have much of a use beyond it, so yeah.. COMPLETELY wasted 1600 dust.
I would love a construcred format with a monthly rotation of 3 different sets each time, like the actual Brawl but on Ladder. It will bring so much freshness both on gameplay and deckbuilding.
This. I realized when seeing the format in brawl that
1. I love it, including how unusual things can get. I have NO CLUE what warrior is supposed to do in that last one but I would've loved to try to figure it out.
2. It really feels off to me to play a mode with no stars and ranks. Even playing casually I hang around rank 15 so my 'ladder' is between 20-10 and I realize I DO pay attention to where I am in those ranks.
3. I'm tempted to say that it might need to be 4 sets if the Classic set doesn't show up (and I DO like Classic not showing up).
It's crazy. There's random mess in Single player. There's rotations in Brawl and Arena. but my home in Constructed is left out.
Oh and a sealed format. The concept of opening a mass of packs then making a deck out o fthem sounds VERY interesting.
This question makes me think you mean something specific and not just "If I play something why should I just win with it?" Not sure what you mean here though.
Why you're entitled to answer with 1 card what your opponent did with his entire deck?
The assumption is that the initial question is something that cannot be stopped with normal play.
For example, while a 3/2 at 2 mana isn't really a 'question' in need of an 'answer' a card combo like Mountain Giant into Conjurer's Calling is something that breaks the normal power level for the mana cost. If the opponent is proceeding as normal, they will not be able to handle the Tempo and will die.
Thus a 'question', or A specific question "Do I win now?"
Note that this is not a problem, but the actual point to deck designing. That is, at some point, your deck is going to do something 'unfair' to try to win.
The idea behind such a strategy requiring 'an entire deck' in the first place is that it's meant to be a high risk play. You are sacrificing value and future play for current Tempo and aggression. The answer, then, is meant to punish that by letting the opponent counter your Tempo while gaining Value.
Thus '1 card to stop an entire deck'. It's why cards like Brawl exist. A similar mentality comes from 3 mana cards like Shadow Word: Death can kill 10 mana Deathwings.
Note that if the cost to remove such a move is the same as the move then there's no point to defending as the aggressor still has Tempo (you stop them then end your turn ) and lost nothing for it.
So yes, answers need to exist in general and while they don't have to be 'one card' they need to be cheaper than the question.
There are decent answers that enable you to continue the game like MC tech.
MC tech is, to be blunt, a broken piece of mess.
Against a full board he's worthless. Removing 1 mountain giant out of 4 isn't enough to answer the question or 'continue the game'.
He's mostly good when it's a board of mostly small fries and something big, to which there's a 75% chance for him to fail and you lose and a 25% chance of a Mind Control styled Tempo swing so bad that you basically win.
MC tech isn't a 'decent answer that lets the game continue'. Cards like Brawl do better, as it still gives a value advantage but leaves something on the board to keep the aggressor's Tempo as is. Even in full board clears, tactics like learning not to overcommit or force an early clear is an effective way to keep the game going, so long as the board clear isn't too broken an advantage. Which is why flamestrike is a balanced card.
MC tech represents just about all that can go wrong with answers. RNG based, too wide of a swing between 'worthless' and 'game breaking', thus being both ineffective and too effective without much in between.
What not exists is a answer that just wins on spot and such answer should not exist.
An effective MC Tech does just that. 3 mana Big Game Hunter was pretty darn close. But yes, answers should not win the game unless the opponent either played poorly (i.e. over-committed) or it's a culmination of an entire game's effort to effectively checkmate the opponent (i.e pressuring a combo deck so that they are forced to trigger their combo too early to 'take a chance' then answering to finish them off).
Basically a queston or answer, the move should feel like a checkmate situation: either taking an advantage of an unprepared deck/player or the culmination of an overall strategy that could've been disrupted beforehand that required planning and some adaptation to put together.
Imagine that you have to design new Hearthstone's expansion.
The trick is, you know, that there will be no more packs. Each card will be available for a small amount of gold.
How do you design all 135 cards, so that every one of them will be cool to buy?
-------------------------------
I'm asking because I'm developer and Acivision wants me to make more money, but thay can't sell lootboxes anymore, and I don't know what to do with all 90 bad Uldum's card ...
------------------------------
...just joking. I'm no one. hehe. So funny. lols
------------------------------
But seriously. How to do that?
Well, I'm guessing this is related to a certain bill that's running around.
If the question is specifically how to run this without lootboxes, Blizzard already has a mechanism: the Adventures. Simply dump all of the cards into different floors with a set cost. So long as it's not randomized it's not a 'loot box'. Meanwhile you can mix in good cards with not so good cards.
Boom, a system to have a mix of cards with without lootboxes.
If the real question is specific.. how to handle cards with set indivdiual prices... two ways:
1. F it, just put them up. Cards aren't exactly real merc that needs to be sold. So if they make some cards no one wants to buy who cares so long as they make enough sales overall. So they are free to have the card quality stay the same. They can also be a little more sneaky and offer pre-orders for 'the entire set' or 'an entire class' and have it be cheaper to buy the entire set than it would be to individually pick all of the 'good' cards.
(so if 80 of 120 cards are good, you just make sure that..say, buying 80 individual cards cost $75 and buying EVERYTHING costs $55)
2. Have the prices 'flex' in a market. Thus more in demand cards cost more than others.
Myself I would have all of the cards have a 'maximum' price that they start off in at the start of a set, then have the prices drop as they lose in demand. So wanting the cards early means you pay to access it now. If you wait, you get a discount. If the card stays popular though the discount will be smaller.
So yeah, there's ways.
Though note that the law also bans cash shops as well, so this would be illegal. So what I would do is this:
Realize that it's the game companies who make the rating system not hte govnermnet, so I'm free to change "M" to "18+" to avoid games going to "AO". Then require all games with microtransactions to be "M" only. Thus Hearthstone becomes an M rated game: 18 or older. All of the systems are open to use after that.
I don't TRY for it, but I have a particular liking of getting exact lethal. I won't delay the game to make it happen, but it 'feels' better when I do it.
Just to note, I tend to be rather against buffing and still not fully convinced the ones we did were a good idea (I do know I can be wrong: I also said we shouldn't do rotations before we did it), and even if we do as others said the classic set should not be stronger than the expansion set. IMO Classic should be placeholders or fill spots. That is, if there's something in the expansion cards that don't cover what your deck needs, the classi set should offer an option, though not as good a replacement to what an expansion would cover. For example, if you need a good tempo 2 drop, your first aim should be expansion cards, with classic being the "ugg there's no 2 drop, guess I can use this." alternative. THAT SAID!!..
Druid (technically could buff almost ANY card, but I decided feral druid needs some love)
Savagery 1->0 mana this card is really bad as is.. at least it should cost less.. also goes well with the next bufff.
I'm actually ok with this one. It still makes the card horribly niche but once that niche kicks in the card becomes very abusive.
Bite 4-> 3 mana this card never saw play (after it got nerfed in beta) druid has worse ramp right now it can be buffed.
This also works as it's still really bad this way but offers something usable enough to use when nothing else is available.
Hunter - hunters got a strong classic set so..
King Krush 9-> 8 mana this card was ONLY good cause of katrena winterwisp otherwise it's terrible, with this buff it's a decent finisher if you can get there.. another suggestion could be +1 attack or even more minor +1 hp. it IS a legendary after all and the worst classic class legendary in that...
No to this one. Katerena has shown that this card CAN be made usable if the right niche kicks in. Thus it's already at the spot I said Savagery could get into once your buff comes in. Making it cheaper risks a big time charge beast finisher actually usable on a regular basis. The 'it's a legendary' argument is falling on deaf ears: legendaries are NOT made to be more powerful than other cards, just more unique and interesting. Being one of the few big time cards that can charge serve that.
Gladiator's Longbow 2->3 durability, this card costs 7 mana! you are overpaying 2 mana over arcanite reaper for being immune which is a 0.5 mana effect looking at
Candleshot this weapon has too little durability for how much it costs..
Not sure I'm up for this one. 15 damage is a lot to give to hunter. Note that Candleshot with 1 damage and 3 durability was broken as crap. The thought of making a high end weapon in CLASSIC coming remotely close to candleshot in any way is enough to nope out of this one.
Paladin - not too much to buff here either, some card buffs might be too toxic for the game if buffed.
Lay on Hands - 8->7 mana at least lets you do something else the turn you play it..
Paladins start doing very nasty things once they get reliable card draw, and blizzard loves to give that to them in expansions. So shrinking the cost seems dangerous.
If anything, I'd up the health boost. Maybe +10 health or even more. Thus instead of being able to rely on tempo it lets you draw while surviving the next attack better.
Argent Protector 2/2->2/3 can't buff anything else there.. holy wrath is pointless and blessed champion would be too oppressive as a combo piece this card has a 0.5 mana cost effect attached to it.. could be a 2/3 really, great in arena.
Similar to card draw, giving paladin good tempo cards is also a VERY dangerous thing. Best just to leave it alone than try to lock down to a 'MUST buff 2 cards each class to be fair!' The classes are horribly balanced in their base/classic sets, so it makes sense that they may not need the same buffs on each side.
Priest - his classic set SUCKS but can't be easily buffed in long term, but I did find 2 cards worthy low risk buffs.
Shadowform 3-> 2 mana hero power change cards cost 2 in other sets this card is fun to use but costs too much also you lose the healing for using it so.. yeah 2 mana.. still probably not playable but it's a fun card.
That won't really change anything. The proble mwith shadowform isn't the cost: I've seen priests try it and they had no problems casting the spell. The problem is consistency. A '2 damage a turn' priest needs a different deck from a '2 healing a turn' priest, and you can't be sure when you are getting the spell.
Holy Fire 6->5 mana could help priest since this card is played sometimes mostly cause of lack of other alternatives.. value wise 5 damage= 3.5 mana, 5 healing =1 mana bundling cost =0.5 good enough.
I'm ok with this one.
Rogue - just got nerfed but I got some unrelated archtype buffs.
Kidnapper - 5/3-> 5/4 this card is badly stated for it's cost
This won't help. It's 6 mana to sap a minion that requires combo. That's just no.
And I'm afraid of making it cheaper because the last thing rogue needs is MORE tempo.
Patient Assassin - 1/1-> 1/2 it's a small buff but this guy is never played at all I am not sure though since arena exists.. and rogue is strong there..
This is technically fine for the assassin, but goes back to "why ARE we buffing Rogue in the first place?" Blizzard was able to fit in 2 buffs per class in boomsday, but we don't need to stick to that mindlessly. If a class is already strong enough why force yourself to buffing them? If you DO want to buff anything on a strong class, aim for cards that won't help them directly but opens up some fun, if less powerful, alternatives. I can't think of anything fun to do with this one though.
Shaman the overload mechanic was underestimated as a drawback back in classic
Lightning Storm 3->2 mana, this card is not even played in shaman control decks, and is mostly a feelsbad when it is.. would rather lower the overload by 1, but I already stated that I would not change the card text.
Honestly, I would rather find a way to eliminate the randomness, but I can't think of a balanced way to set that. So 2 mana feels ok enough.
I'd kill an overload off of it. Yes yes, 'don't change the text' you said. F that. There's no reason to force that on yourself.
0 mana makes it VERY dangerous as a synergy card as all 0 mana cards do. The 2 mana overload meanwhile makes it impossible to use normally. Normally that means "niche" which is great but 0 mana niche turns OP far too fast (i.e. Auctioneer fodder).
1 overload makes it usable for overload synergies and make it about as hard to use as the other overload cards shaman tends to use when embracing overload.
Warlock
Felguard 3->2 mana, if you are destroying one of you mana crystals.. it's better be worth it.. 1 mana "Cheat" for -1 mana the whole game? hell no..
I don't know. That might make it too strong for zoo decks that rely on cheap cards anyway. Otherwise it's far too painful at -1 mana.
I just don't think you can really balance this thing well without completely changing it.
Siphon Soul 6->5 mana overcosted removal, when it was played it was one of the worst cards in warlock..
I'm fine with it costing 6. I'm feeling that warlock shouldn't have easy to use removal. It should be PAINFUL to focus on a removal route and spending a lot of mana is painful. If you want cheap removal, go Rogue or Priest.
Warrior
Mortal Strike 4->3 mana it's a fireball if you are meeting the requirement otherwise it's just an ok card
Mortal Strike imo is exactly where classic should be. The card is in that "*sigh* I guess this will work" place. it should be slightly under balance with expansion cards being ON balance.
That I'm actually fine with. Unlike paladin, Warrior doesn't go nuts with any old decent aggressive minion (an expansion made of pirate aggression otoh...) and that card is a little tricky to use. But it DOES open up a bit more that Engra..err the mechanic formally known as Enrage mindset.
Mage
Icicle 2->1 mana worst card in mage, should not cost 2..
Agreed.
Etheral arcanist 3/3-> 3/4 never played card, easi'ish to counter.
NO! *NO!*
The card does NOT need to be anything close to viable. When it actually DOES work it's one of those instawin risks and Edwin. Edwin, though, takes a lot of build up and risk to play him. Arcanist doesn't require more than a secret to stick, which tendss ot happen depending on which secrets are around for mage. There's no good way to make him usable without being broken.
So nevermind buffing. I'm all for just cutting him out of the game before someone figures out a way to make him actually work.
Neutral
Illidan Stormrage 7/5-> 7/6 should be buffed.. I think his text should be more impactful but I can't change it by my own rules.
Honestly I like his minion making thing and I wouldn't dare buff it. honestly I'd rather flip the stats: 5/7, so that his threat comes more from his spawns rather than his attack.
Arcane Golem 3-> 2 mana if you are giving your opponent a huge upside at least make it worth... was nerfed too hard..
Makes cards that summon random 2 drops stronger and he's still worthless as is.
if you really want to spice him up but keep him Classic viable.. again breaking that silly rule: "both players gain a mana crystal."
Most classes have access to mass removal for 5-and-up mana, Brawl, mass hysteria, Hagatha's scheme, etc. That's why lategame build-a-board cards aren't nearly as scary as comboes that can pull it off earlier. Astromancer can cheat an obscene amount of mana/stats onto the board but it's fine because she costs 7 mana. Big Priest is a bit of an exception because it not only cheats mana (barnes-> resurrect), it has a seemingly endless supply of boards with mass resurrect and spellstone. If it were just one huge board a la kangor's or Zul'jin it wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem.
Honestly what bugs me about Barnes is in it's low risk factor. In contrast, early game Edwins require holding a hand that's set up specifically for him and leaves you with crap for tempo otherwise. Crazy shouldn't be do or die for the attacker but it should leave you scrambling to recover a bit.
Barnes is 4/5 worth of power at the worst of times and utterly ruins the game when you get lucky. You aren't really losing anything if he misses so he's just a free "do I win" instaroll. If he rolls well and your opponent stops it, you can often be in a BETTER position than them, especially if they had to give up a lot.
Crazy should come at a cost. You should feel good about your chances to win if you disrupt or stop it. You souldn't feel like you have the choice of gaining nothing or losing everything.
@Dakarian: posts like yours make me sad that I'm not playing HS anymore. I would've definitely tested it 1-2 years ago if I cared enough about the matchmaking or simply played a lot (because I do remember that what OP said was happening to me too).
I really wish HS will change such that I might return to it one day and actually enjoy it instead of fucking up my good mood each and every time.
No worries. I've had theories and ideas on other games that I'll never get to figure out since I can't really find a desire to play it or can't find the time.
There's too many games to play, things to do, and things to see to really be worried about a single game. Even if this game becomes enjoyable to you, you really aren't 'missing out' by not returning to it so long as what you ARE doing is fun and interesting. I've personally missed entire generations of games PC and console and I've come to terms for it, and that's without actually disliking them.
I sound angry and bothered but really I don't get a lot of places to really get emotional about something, so I'm actually enjoying the debate. If I wasn't I would've stopped reading them rather than reading and responding for 5 years running. Same with hearthstone. I'm here because I enjoy the way I play it. If I can't, I stop. I'm not going to wait for fire emblem heros to not require gallons of my time to 'keep up' or for clash royal to remove its paywall or for me to figure out why I can't find a reason to play magic arena even though I found the game interesting.
Millions of people enjoy those games. And probably most of them are better than when I played it. They can keep enjoying it. I'm enjoying the games I play. And that's that.
Apologies for requesting something that was on the other site but I'll admit that I really REALLY miss that. It was a nice way to tell when someone added to a post when I see a new name up, especially when I post in something then stop seeing my name in the 'last by' column.
Though I guess the real idea is to have some way to know what threads have been updated by looking at the forum (no not a notification or some other page that lists updates) so, whatever way you see fit will work too.
Year of the dragon doesn't necessarily mean lots of dragons. We didn' t have a raven expansion with YotR.
And we didn't really have any real time with mechs, thanks to boomsday being low power and doing a power reset year. IMO it's a good time for mechs to show up. Beasts will return in due time.
Agreed, but there is no 'raven' tribe in hs. I like to think that year of the dragon will at least attempt to push some dragon archetypes.
I realise the name of the year may be a name alone, but I live in hope. More dragons and less mechs would be fun imo, especially with the release of some high profile dragon minions that have yet to fully flourish (nozari, kalecgos), and given their association with dalaran, it would be a viable direction for the next expansion if it were to push some dragon-focused archetypes among the "good-guy" classes, as a retaliation against the villainous onslaught of rise of shadows.
Complete speculation on my part, but a guy can dream...
It might come up. Right now we are focused on the villains, who don't have any dragons but DO have the mech loving Dr. Boom. The mech thing is also due to Blizzard wanting to test out buffs and wanted to hit the least effective set in standard that, if it does get strong, has a short lifespan. If Dragons are added and overwhelm thet meta, we'll have 2 years of it (barring nerfs) while mechs die next year no matter what happens.
But yeah. I believe we'll see more dragons when we move to the heros or other more ..dragon like settings this year.
It's seems i triggered more people than i tought. :d
"Matchmaking rigged" is one of the common triggers for HS community in general, since it has been asked and (not) answered thousand times over. No one can really tell, since we dont see the code. One would need thousand games played, probably more, to establish a reasonable sample size, but other factors will also play role, so even if you could get those games down in certain conditions, it is just not possible to get any reliable data. So it ends up being a feeling and it always starts from someone getting crushed and then goes to forums complaining about matchmaking and the cycle repeats :) There is just no good answer, simple as that :)
It would take thousands of games to utterly prove it, but we're not really at that point. What we need is just enough games that go over the random expected to show it's something to at least do a bigger test on. It's similar to that bug last year when they made the change to packs that caused most people to get a legendary in the first 10 packs. Right afterwards a few people wondered why they were suddenly getting legendaries early even though they had already opened packs. We brushed it off like..well. like this. Then a few people posted data: they opened 10 packs from each of the 4 sets and stated that they received legendaries in all four.
The first few times it was still doubted but no longer mocked. It also caused a few others to test themselves and post their findings. After a few pages of that, the tide shifted.
Note that no one posted a video so we could've easily said "oh they are just lying." I didn't see anyone claim that, even among the doubters. Meanwhile more and more people kept running the test. Even when a few people posted that they DIDN'T get a legendary, enough did to show that SOMETHING was odd. Reddit eventually ran a survey and found that 75% of the respondents were getting legendaries early.
Blizzard never acknowledged it, and there wasn't some massive 10,000 player study done, but it's generally accepted as a thing that happened.
I saw a similar thing happen in the reverse as well. People declaring that they broke the pity timer. Note that this is a flat out trigger: we've spent years seeing people swear that it didn't exist or they broke the timer only to find out they never really knew how many packs they opened. So we flat out shut down the first few folks who said they broke the timer.
Then came a few that posted data. Again, no video or big study. Just a simple "I use a pity timer and normally things are fine, but it's been 45 packs and nothing." A few of those and while most ignored it not everyone did. Others posted the same, not a vague "I did something and I KNOW I SOOULD GET IT NOW!" or any "OMG GREEDY BLIZZARARADDD!" Just calm statements showing they actually TRIED to keep track. 42 packs. 41 packs. Here I have a spreadsheet of what I opened. After a few pages of that, people stopped mocking it and started thinking it was a bug.
Blizzard never officially declared the pity timer, but they DID post a week later that "some people didn't get the legendary they should get, so here's dust to compensate." By then it was already long accepted as a real thing. That's, again, without video, or viewing the code or anything people keep swearing they have to do to prove anything.
We aren't dense. We aren't blind idiots. We DO listen to data and, as a group, CAN change our beliefs. We don't need a double blind study done by scientists. We don't need Blizzard showing us the code. We don't need video marked by 5 witnesses and a crew of FBI that can prove it wasn't photoshopped.
We just need something, ANYTHING that shows you aren't just some conspiracy theorist or someone who swears that because you got countered in TWO of your games that the entire world is rigged against you as if anything OTHER than a steamroll win is a sign of the Matrix.
I spent years posting in these threads, attempting to reason, to meet these ideas half way, to ask for a follow up. "Do it again, but track it." "just track for a few days and show what you got." "Just do something other than miles of theory of how making a hypercomplicated system of code in order to have high cost legendaries decks be countered by Rares in a homebrew deck can somehow mean massive profits and an exploited population. Just do something other than calling those who don't blindly believe you "fanboys" or "sheep". Just do something other than swearing that you know the truth while bashing us with 'well, no one really knows.' when we reply with anything other than agreement."
I got ONE actual test. **ONE!** And funny enough, it DID suggest something was off. But it was stuck in page 7 of a thread full of fanboy/tinfoilhat mud slinging and wild accusations towards anyone for anyone to notice, and the one who posted it never followed up or posted it anywhere else.
Not long after that, hearthpwn banned the topic, at least when data isn't being presented. Of course, data was NEVER presented in any other thread.
So, from a person old enough to have owned a colecovision when it was new and who spent over 5 years debating over this topic and hearing nearly everything about it.. I'll be blunt.
Take that egotistical Neo-wannabe "I know the truth no one else does" mindset, and these "who can ever know" mealy mouthed mess, and shove them into 4-chan. Take the "no one will believe on matter what" cop-out excuse there too.
If you want to actually DISCUSS about this topic, then actually DO some actually testing. Take a statistics course in Khan academy (just checked, they DO have it). Or just run a #($)#)( deck tracker. Do some actual testing. 100 games. 30 games. Just something more than (#)$) FIVE! Then post it. No, you don't get worshiped for it, but MAYBE we can get a few others to join in if you have something interesting. And if THEY do what you do and SEE what you see, we'll have something real to work off of.
If you don't or can't do this and want to believe anyway, from someone who has a whole host of beliefs I can't prove, you are free to do so and aren't an idiot for doing so. But PLEASE don't be surprised, angry, or ..well, anything when you get no converts. You are free to believe as you like, but WE are free to not believe you. We're fine with it if you are fine with it. Posting about how we SHOULD believe it is NOT acting 'fine' about it. Neither is throwing words like 'triggered lol' like a schoolyard idiot.
This may or may not be the overall feeling of the community. But it IS mine, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one. And you didn't post in the salt thread so you get a whole heaping helping of my 2 cents about it and a hope you get to see the actual humans behind the folks who posts in forums like this one.
TL:DR
Post some #($)#)( data or just let topics like this die, please.
It's seems i triggered more people than i tought. :d
It's a discussion forum and we still don't have a lot of discussion topics as the number of people are still low.
It's also a VERY old and loaded topic from hearthpwn that keeps showing up. We've been debating this topic for the past 5 YEARS in the old forums. To the point where they flat out banned the topic if it didn't come with data.
So it's a trigger yes. Feel free to bring up other ones like offering nerf suggestions for the coin or blaming blizzard for northshire cleric showing up 5 times out of 10 against you.
Year of the dragon doesn't necessarily mean lots of dragons. We didn' t have a raven expansion with YotR.
And we didn't really have any real time with mechs, thanks to boomsday being low power and doing a power reset year. IMO it's a good time for mechs to show up. Beasts will return in due time.
Question is kind of on topic, so I'll ask it here: I know class cards show up more often with Discover effects, but is there also some rule/algorithm regarding the actual cards' rarity? Like, a greater chance for common/rare then epic, etc.?
Class cards appear 4 times more than neutral cards. Apart from that, 100% random
which helps to explain zilliax. Warriors will be 4 times more likely to have warrior mechs than neutral mechs, and zilliax is neutral. Thus you are 4 times less likely to even see a non-neutral mech, nevermind for that mech to be the Zilliax
If they have the nuts, at least you know where you're supposed to kick them.
In all seriousness though, I think all that's needed is more self-awareness and attention to what's happening. I've noticed in the past how I got demotivated and pissed when my opponents just kept getting what they needed at the right time, but when I was the one with the clutch saves, it was like "finally, where was this card the whole game" or "about damn time". When I get the god hand from the get go, I just shrugged and tought "yeah, that's how the deck's supposed to work, so...as expected". In other words, I was either pissed at my opponent when they got lucky or I was pissed at the game when I had to get lucky to win, or, at best, took good hands for granted. The average response was negative, rather than middle of the road. It took me some time but once I learned to appreciate my own luck, my own top decks or the games where I just wiped the floor with the opponent cause I drew the nuts, I became much less negative about it when it happened to me.
This is a powerful message here about expectations.
Whenever you do something, you have an expectation of some type. I take a test and expect a B. I go driving and expect not to crash and die. I run this computer and expect not to be beamed away by alien ducks. Whatever your expectation, you are going ot set your anger and joy based on that expectation.
If you, for example, take a test and expect a 70, then a 70 will leave you neutral, less will make you sad or angry and more will make you happy. Thus a 90 would leave you bouncing for joy that you "beat the test!"
OTOH, many people expect perfection. They demand 100 from themselves. For them, 100 becomes the norm. Getting that doesn't bring joy since nothing special has happened or, at best, a soft contentment of things 'being right with the world'. Anything less, though, and you'll feel horrible as things 'went wrong' somewhere. As you can guess, this makes for a much more stressful lifestyle.
Now take this to HS where there is always ALWAYS a % chance of failure and people are bad enough with percentages to not realize that '10%' still means it can happen 20 times in a row.
If you are going into a game expecting a win.. not 'wanting to win' or even 'desparate to win' but thinking that you SHOULD win, then the above ends up the result: wins don't bring joy because things are 'as they should be' while losses feel horribly wrong.
When I was learning to drive I received some very powerful advice: everyone is crazy. If a car is parked by the road, the driver WILL come out in front of you. If you want to change lanes, the driver behind will rush forward. They won't always, but the expected is that they will. Thus when it happens, you already planned for it and everything is normal. If it doesn' thappen then.. yay an easy time driving.
So yes, if you are playing odd paladin then expect for them having Dreadlord. Expect for God mode to kick in. Expect things will turn south until you know it can't. You don't have to PLAN for it. You can play as if they won't come, but don't let yourself expect it SHOULD not come.
And for goodness sakes, don't plan on your plans to work out. Then when they do, you'll actually enjoy it.
Ok. So you start your game of HS. Both are at 1 mana, nothing too crazy can happen. Then, all of a sudden, a couple of turns later, some really crazy stuff happens and you (or your opponent :)) is dead or completely done for on board.
So I think we all agree this should not be possible at turn 1 (no fun there). But what would the minimal turn be to have a crazy comeback/miracle/combo/insane-rng turn?
Turn 2? Turn 3? 4? 5?
I am not talking about aggro decks who try to kill you by turn 5 if you do not react by using cheap resources.
But we have some typical examples, like Khadgar's mountain giant army on turn 5 or a very big van Cleef very early, or a board full of pimped murlocs with bloodlust. Stuff like that.
Depends. The drive that I think everyone is looking for in a competitive format is the ability to anticipate and counter what their opponent is doing. Thus 'crazy stuff' should be, in most cases, after a point when you or your deck had a reasonable chance of doing something to disrupt or counter the move.
However I will note that in a card game 'anticipate and counter' is mostly handled at the deck crafting level, NOT the game board. Card games are heavily built in a sort of 'pet battle' system. You build your 'pet' up, tweak them, attempt to anticipate your opponent's pets, then plan a strategy to teach your 'pet'. Once the game begins, you let the pet go, whisper "good luck", send them off, then hope for the best. Even in games where you have choices to make in-game, they are mostly there to give you a chance to adapt if things go south. But, in the end, you win off of your choices before the game.
That's where things go tricky. If I built a priest revive deck with 0 removal and lose to a mountain army at turn 5, then that's the fault of the priest deck designer. You did not build your pet up or plan for them to deal with mountain giants at turn 5. You didn't even put any way to adapt and give yourself a chance to turn the tables if things go bad and you face such a mage. You failed to plan for this situation. Your opponent did (by killing you before you start reviving at turn 9). Your opponent has the right to 'crazy stuff' at turn 5.
Thus crazy stuff should be allowed when it punishes decks or playstyles that leave themselves vulnerable to them so long as strategies and decks can be designed to then counter said strategies. If I can build a deck that beats a mountain giant army at turn 5 (either by killing them early, pressuring them so they can't fully commit, or countering the crazy fully) then it's generally ok.
The one addition I'd add is that stopping the crazy shouldn't end the game outright. That's is what makes turn 1 crazy games like unnerfed pirate warrior boring: either you die at turn 1 or you slaughter them after turn 1. Thus if the crazy mode is a one-trick pony deck then that's a problem even if it's stoppable. If the opponent is disadvantaged but CAN recover then it's a good sign of keeping the crazy.
Lastly I think we should not consider 'god mode'. God mode is when a deck gets every single RNG thing going for it. Every good deck, even if it's not designed to be that way WILL have that "OMG I got everything I need instawin!" situation. That's like netdecking: like it or not you have to accept it if you want to play a card game.
TL:DR summary!!
So yeah, it's not a simple matter. 'Crazy things' are more of a standard of how decks just go. Decks are not built to be fair. They are built to be unfair, like being able to nuke 20 mana and 5 cards of stuff with a 2 mana sap. And if your deck can't handle a certain type of crazy it should lose, turn 1 or turn 50 and no you shouldn't have a chance: you're supposed to add one when you build your deck.
Crazy should be something you can build a deck to counter, and it should leave you disadvantaged but not dead if it's stopped. "God mode' is acceptable if it's not too common.
Basically, the technical term for 'Crazy' is 'win condition'. Just about every deck should have it. There's no minimum or maximum time on when it goes. It's more about what you can do about it and what happens if you deal with it than when it goes off.
I'll be honest, if I had decided to stay on hearthpwn, I really wouldn't care much for the posts talking about OOC. Similar to me having to choose here and if I saw folks going "oh hearthpwn is great now. We should go back!" There's just so much awkwardness between the two already that bringing it up in a signature or other feature just feels like ..well... trying to attack the site by drawing people to the other site. Though really, a thread going "Hey everyone, let's all go to Reddit" wouldn't be that great either. That's less declaring of what you guys should do and more just sharing my emotions and how I would perceive the situation, and perhaps a few other people as well.
We made a new home. The old home is around. OOC has a lot of building to do to get itself up to snuff. Hearthpwn has a lot of issues it needs to fix. The best thing for both is to let both live and for each to handle that business.
The public, like much of the internet, though is always 2 posts away from open warfare over SOMETHING. I can honestly see a few signatures or stray comments leading to some stupid war between OOC and hearthpwn. I'm saddened and understanding of them wanting to put a lid on it especially if some of the ones doing it probably are better off staying in OOC and talking heathstone than in hearthpwn talking about how bad the site has become.
That's my opinion on it so feel free to take it with a batch of salt. Myself I was considering keeping both but after hearing the drama I don't feel I could go to hearthpwn and treat it like a normal site, so I don't go there anymore. Maybe if things stabilize and everything calms down and we can reference each other over topics without old blood raging I might return. Otherwise , meh.
To each their own, but I will ask those who are still in hearthpwn: are you really helping to make the place into a good spot to post in or are your posts, well intentioned or not, causing more strife? REALLY look at them and decide whether it would be better to just stay here and talk about fun things, or go start up Hearthstone for a few games.
Or Magic.. we're also a magic site now right? So yeah, that too.
If it's mech hunter then you might have a thing for buff mechanics as Mechanic is basically a buffing mechanic that works. No worries if you are using someone else's deck, though it is good to try to understand WHY it works well as that sort of thing helps in makgn your own decks later.
As far as Shadowreaper... that's a hard one. On the one hand, I imagine he's still useful in Wild. On the other, it'll be a long time before you actually use Wild, and it's probably better to keep your standard cards than wild ones.
Try TRY to see if you can go without dusting him especially if you already have a deck that's working for you. But if you NEED the dust... yeah he's on the potential dust list.
And I'm guessing that Zilliax is for that mech hunter deck.
I really REALLY don't want to say this but .. if I was in a world where I could put Zilliax into a mech hunter deck and Shadowreaper dusting is what'll get me Zilliax.. I'd dust it. But mostly because I don't have Raza or anything that would make Reaper work and I never really cared about him anyway (during Frozen Throne I had the option to craft 2 death knights, neither went to Shadowreaper, and I'm still glad I chose that way).
Though first I would HIGHLY see if I could live without it. But yeah.. that would be a serious option.
Funny, I was expecting some unknown card with some insane mechanic that would be impossible to figure out. But no it's the card I've been using for a while already.
It's a 'big shaman' deck based around Muckmorpherand [Hearthstone Card (Eureka) Not Found]. The win condition is to drop threats that can't be ignored too often to be stopped.
Most of the early game is carried on controlling the board via Totemic and Hagetha's Sceme. You are also free to cast Feral Spirits and Lightning Storm as needed as your key turns are at 5 and both spells are 3 mana.
The first phase lies in hunting for Mucks and Eureka to drop threats down early. You don't need them to stick, but it's great if they can. Many decks are slow so they'll actually let you start the pain at 7 or 8 mana letting you combine them with ancestral/Big Bad voodoo. But usually you'll use them to grab tempo then maintain it enough for the late game when you can start dropping them normally.
The threats:
Exotic Mountseller: You have a lot of spells so Exotic throwing random 3 drop beasts means a very fast fill up of minions. She's also a 5/8 so honestly she can be a doomsday card by herself.
Big Bad Archmage: Big Bad's 6 drops are generally VERY nasty along with him being a 6/6 on his own. The nice thing is that they can be put down solo, meaning your opponent will be full board clearing your individual cards.
Al'Akir the Windlord: He doesn't stick well but 6 damage charge with divine shield is pretty damaging.
Walking Fountain: He's more defense than offense but 8 health out of the gate, the ability to kill multiple creatures at once, and each turn can throw 8 damage to the face.
The win condition comes from the fact that you have A LOT of these big boys coming. 2 Mucks turning into one of them, 2 Eureka's summoning copies of them, The minions themselves, 2 Ancestral Spirits to resummon, and two Big Bad voodoos to make 2 more threats as all of these guys are 7+.
That's 14 threats, many of them generating more threats on top and all can technically solo. You also get interesting interactions like Mountseller adding more threats while you Voodoo/Spirit her or Walking fountain+Spirit letting you kill 2 big boys or 4 midsized targets while gaining 16 health.
So yeah, Mountseller works very well here.
It actually does. Many of the major mistakes players make in hearthstone involve prioritizing what 'feels' better than what gives them the better chance. For example, many players, when faced with a choice of defending an attack that will kill them or taking a chance that may win the game, will opt to defend: 100% to succeed feels better than, say, a 20% chance to succeed. A pro though will ask "If I defend, how do I actually WIN afterwards." and realize that defending at that time will lead to just slowly losing as you never gain the advantage later on. Thus they will take the 20% chance over the slower loss and win 1 out of 5 games instead of losing every time.
That's called "playing to win vs playing not to lose" It's something you can only do if you are comfortable with losing, even though it actually leaves you winning more often.
It also lets you actually SEE your chances instead of FEEL them, which is important because we're..bad at feeling our chances. For example, studies have shown that losing $10 feels as bad as winning $20 feels good. Which means even though it's a good idea to take a coin flip chance between winning $20 and losing $15 your brain will see it as a bad deal. It's also why you can easily ignore the 10 wins you got in a row but get pissed over 3 losses.
(I know I felt that when I ran a deck tracker on some of my decks, lost a few with a particular deck, went to delete it out of frustration, and found I had a 10-3 win rate with it and just forgot about the earlier wins)
Just about everything from the mulligan to the deck choice to individual plays change once you can look at it logically rather than focus on feeling. That's not to say that feelings are bad. It's fine to be happy or angry at things. The question is just whether they are simply guiding you or if they've taken over. As I've had it put: your feelings should be in the car with you, but should not be the driver.
Wrote a long post but if you just want the highlights!
OMG LONG POST TL:DR SUMMARY!
-You can't get duplicate Legendaries. All other rarities will duplicate.
- Focus on deck design, not so much tier list. Find a deck you want to make. Make sure it's one you WANT to make and can make with just a few craftings, make sure you NEED those cards in that deck, then craft THOSE. Even Zilliax would be worthless if the decks you WANT to play don't really need him.
- Focus the priority NOT on class but on playstyle, and prioritize cards you wouldn't want to play even if it becomes good or gets buffed. Also aim for ones that are about to go away and try not to craft cards that are also about to go away unless you HAVE to. Classes change, cards change, but if you hate aggro, you'll probably always hate aggro.
- The less dusting and crafting you do to get what you need, the better. A deck that requires 1 legendary that makes you happy is MUCH better than one that requires 3.
If you want to know the meaning behind all that, read below.
Legendaries can't duplicate. It will always give you one you don't have. The others ignore what you have.
Meanwhile I would highly advise NOT dusting entire classes. That's because as the sets change so do the playstyles of each class. Chances are you aren't really THAT devoted to the image of that particular hero and are instead in love with the playstyle they present and if you find that the deck you most want to play involves a class who've you've dusted down you're stuck. I know I hated Rogue back when it was a fully combo styled class. However, last year they've gone far more Tempo and reliant on battlecries or stealing mechanics, Thankfully I still had all of the cards I had collected so I could just craft the few things I needed to make those decks.
So don't aim on nuking the entire class. Instead aim for playstyles.
For example take Oblivitron. That card is meant for mech hunter decks. The idea is to be VERY sticky and annoying with mechs that keep summoning mechs that summon other mechs that combine with other mechs that summon mechs and..you get the point.
That card really isn't being used in hunter decks, not even the mech ones. But that can change either due to new sets, no strategies, or the card being buffed so that's not too reliable. HOWEVER!
1. The card has only 8 months to live, so even if it becomes hyper useful, you'll only have a few months to worry about it before it goes away from Standard. A VERY powerful tool budget players have is the "ignore it and let it go away" ability. I've gone through a lot of metas where That One Deck everyone played was NOT the one I made, so I stayed low, made the decks I wanted, and let rotation wipe the deck away. Or nerfs. That Druid nerf swarm in Rumble came at a great time for me.
2. The most important, do you even WANT to play a deck like what I posted? Does a hunter mech deck with sticky tempo cards interest you, or would you rather have something faster, like an aggro deck, or slower like a deck that throws out big boys? Or perhaps you like mechs but you're more interested in what Paladin can do? Thus even if hte deck becomes #1 in the ladder and Oblivitron is used in every deck in the world you would be bored out of your mind to play it.
THAT is the ultimate dust candidate. A card you don't WANT to use no matter how good or bad it is.
You can look at some of your other cards the same way. Carpet is a good card, but he's used for zoo styled decks; decks that throw lots of cheap stuff on the board. Is that even something you want to try out? If so then keep carpet. If not, then maybe you don't really need them?
Whatever you dust, do it VERY sparingly though. You hurt your collection every time you dust and craft something: effectively losing 3 cards for every 1 card you make. I'm not saying to NEVER dust but keep that in mind.
Myself I wouldn't craft legendaries based on a tier list ALONE. Instead I would look at decks I really REALLY want to make and look at what's in there. After all, Zilliax is worthless if the decks you want him for also require 3-5 other cards you can't craft, especially since he'll be gone next year. He's not going to make that Murloc Mage deck you use good enough either.
I'll put it another way, Zilliax won't let you make a Conjure's Calling mage if you don't have Conjure's Calling. Conjure's Calling mage, though, can live without Zilliax.
Make SURE you have good deck that you can almost craft. Look for others who have run decks like that and make sure it's something you find fun, or powerful, or whatever you are looking for in a deck. Also make sure there's not a version that DOESN'T use the card. I wanted to make a Spell Hunter deck last year and wondered if I needed Rhok'delar. I then found Firebat using the card and, when asked, said that it was the weakest part of the deck and not really needed. Thus I ended up making a spell hunter deck without it and did well with it.
Also make sure about that 'almost craft' as well. Last year I saw Shudderwock Shaman, loved it, crafted Shudderwock in a flash..then realized it needed 3 other legendaries I didn't have. Then I watched a lot of Shudderwock games and realized the deck wasn't interesting to me and Shudder really didn't have much of a use beyond it, so yeah.. COMPLETELY wasted 1600 dust.
This. I realized when seeing the format in brawl that
1. I love it, including how unusual things can get. I have NO CLUE what warrior is supposed to do in that last one but I would've loved to try to figure it out.
2. It really feels off to me to play a mode with no stars and ranks. Even playing casually I hang around rank 15 so my 'ladder' is between 20-10 and I realize I DO pay attention to where I am in those ranks.
3. I'm tempted to say that it might need to be 4 sets if the Classic set doesn't show up (and I DO like Classic not showing up).
It's crazy. There's random mess in Single player. There's rotations in Brawl and Arena. but my home in Constructed is left out.
Oh and a sealed format. The concept of opening a mass of packs then making a deck out o fthem sounds VERY interesting.
Now a question.
Why you need A answer?
This question makes me think you mean something specific and not just "If I play something why should I just win with it?" Not sure what you mean here though.
Why you're entitled to answer with 1 card what your opponent did with his entire deck?
The assumption is that the initial question is something that cannot be stopped with normal play.
For example, while a 3/2 at 2 mana isn't really a 'question' in need of an 'answer' a card combo like Mountain Giant into Conjurer's Calling is something that breaks the normal power level for the mana cost. If the opponent is proceeding as normal, they will not be able to handle the Tempo and will die.
Thus a 'question', or A specific question "Do I win now?"
Note that this is not a problem, but the actual point to deck designing. That is, at some point, your deck is going to do something 'unfair' to try to win.
The idea behind such a strategy requiring 'an entire deck' in the first place is that it's meant to be a high risk play. You are sacrificing value and future play for current Tempo and aggression. The answer, then, is meant to punish that by letting the opponent counter your Tempo while gaining Value.
Thus '1 card to stop an entire deck'. It's why cards like Brawl exist. A similar mentality comes from 3 mana cards like Shadow Word: Death can kill 10 mana Deathwings.
Note that if the cost to remove such a move is the same as the move then there's no point to defending as the aggressor still has Tempo (you stop them then end your turn ) and lost nothing for it.
So yes, answers need to exist in general and while they don't have to be 'one card' they need to be cheaper than the question.
There are decent answers that enable you to continue the game like MC tech.
MC tech is, to be blunt, a broken piece of mess.
Against a full board he's worthless. Removing 1 mountain giant out of 4 isn't enough to answer the question or 'continue the game'.
He's mostly good when it's a board of mostly small fries and something big, to which there's a 75% chance for him to fail and you lose and a 25% chance of a Mind Control styled Tempo swing so bad that you basically win.
MC tech isn't a 'decent answer that lets the game continue'. Cards like Brawl do better, as it still gives a value advantage but leaves something on the board to keep the aggressor's Tempo as is. Even in full board clears, tactics like learning not to overcommit or force an early clear is an effective way to keep the game going, so long as the board clear isn't too broken an advantage. Which is why flamestrike is a balanced card.
MC tech represents just about all that can go wrong with answers. RNG based, too wide of a swing between 'worthless' and 'game breaking', thus being both ineffective and too effective without much in between.
What not exists is a answer that just wins on spot and such answer should not exist.
An effective MC Tech does just that. 3 mana Big Game Hunter was pretty darn close. But yes, answers should not win the game unless the opponent either played poorly (i.e. over-committed) or it's a culmination of an entire game's effort to effectively checkmate the opponent (i.e pressuring a combo deck so that they are forced to trigger their combo too early to 'take a chance' then answering to finish them off).
Basically a queston or answer, the move should feel like a checkmate situation: either taking an advantage of an unprepared deck/player or the culmination of an overall strategy that could've been disrupted beforehand that required planning and some adaptation to put together.
Well, I'm guessing this is related to a certain bill that's running around.
If the question is specifically how to run this without lootboxes, Blizzard already has a mechanism: the Adventures. Simply dump all of the cards into different floors with a set cost. So long as it's not randomized it's not a 'loot box'. Meanwhile you can mix in good cards with not so good cards.
Boom, a system to have a mix of cards with without lootboxes.
If the real question is specific.. how to handle cards with set indivdiual prices... two ways:
1. F it, just put them up. Cards aren't exactly real merc that needs to be sold. So if they make some cards no one wants to buy who cares so long as they make enough sales overall. So they are free to have the card quality stay the same. They can also be a little more sneaky and offer pre-orders for 'the entire set' or 'an entire class' and have it be cheaper to buy the entire set than it would be to individually pick all of the 'good' cards.
(so if 80 of 120 cards are good, you just make sure that..say, buying 80 individual cards cost $75 and buying EVERYTHING costs $55)
2. Have the prices 'flex' in a market. Thus more in demand cards cost more than others.
Myself I would have all of the cards have a 'maximum' price that they start off in at the start of a set, then have the prices drop as they lose in demand. So wanting the cards early means you pay to access it now. If you wait, you get a discount. If the card stays popular though the discount will be smaller.
So yeah, there's ways.
Though note that the law also bans cash shops as well, so this would be illegal. So what I would do is this:
Realize that it's the game companies who make the rating system not hte govnermnet, so I'm free to change "M" to "18+" to avoid games going to "AO". Then require all games with microtransactions to be "M" only. Thus Hearthstone becomes an M rated game: 18 or older. All of the systems are open to use after that.
I don't TRY for it, but I have a particular liking of getting exact lethal. I won't delay the game to make it happen, but it 'feels' better when I do it.
Just to note, I tend to be rather against buffing and still not fully convinced the ones we did were a good idea (I do know I can be wrong: I also said we shouldn't do rotations before we did it), and even if we do as others said the classic set should not be stronger than the expansion set. IMO Classic should be placeholders or fill spots. That is, if there's something in the expansion cards that don't cover what your deck needs, the classi set should offer an option, though not as good a replacement to what an expansion would cover. For example, if you need a good tempo 2 drop, your first aim should be expansion cards, with classic being the "ugg there's no 2 drop, guess I can use this." alternative. THAT SAID!!..
Druid (technically could buff almost ANY card, but I decided feral druid needs some love)
Savagery 1->0 mana this card is really bad as is.. at least it should cost less.. also goes well with the next bufff.
I'm actually ok with this one. It still makes the card horribly niche but once that niche kicks in the card becomes very abusive.
Bite 4-> 3 mana this card never saw play (after it got nerfed in beta) druid has worse ramp right now it can be buffed.
This also works as it's still really bad this way but offers something usable enough to use when nothing else is available.
Hunter - hunters got a strong classic set so..
King Krush 9-> 8 mana this card was ONLY good cause of katrena winterwisp otherwise it's terrible, with this buff it's a decent finisher if you can get there.. another suggestion could be +1 attack or even more minor +1 hp. it IS a legendary after all and the worst classic class legendary in that...
No to this one. Katerena has shown that this card CAN be made usable if the right niche kicks in. Thus it's already at the spot I said Savagery could get into once your buff comes in. Making it cheaper risks a big time charge beast finisher actually usable on a regular basis. The 'it's a legendary' argument is falling on deaf ears: legendaries are NOT made to be more powerful than other cards, just more unique and interesting. Being one of the few big time cards that can charge serve that.
Gladiator's Longbow 2->3 durability, this card costs 7 mana! you are overpaying 2 mana over arcanite reaper for being immune which is a 0.5 mana effect looking at
Candleshot this weapon has too little durability for how much it costs..
Not sure I'm up for this one. 15 damage is a lot to give to hunter. Note that Candleshot with 1 damage and 3 durability was broken as crap. The thought of making a high end weapon in CLASSIC coming remotely close to candleshot in any way is enough to nope out of this one.
Paladin - not too much to buff here either, some card buffs might be too toxic for the game if buffed.
Lay on Hands - 8->7 mana at least lets you do something else the turn you play it..
Paladins start doing very nasty things once they get reliable card draw, and blizzard loves to give that to them in expansions. So shrinking the cost seems dangerous.
If anything, I'd up the health boost. Maybe +10 health or even more. Thus instead of being able to rely on tempo it lets you draw while surviving the next attack better.
Argent Protector 2/2->2/3 can't buff anything else there.. holy wrath is pointless and blessed champion would be too oppressive as a combo piece this card has a 0.5 mana cost effect attached to it.. could be a 2/3 really, great in arena.
Similar to card draw, giving paladin good tempo cards is also a VERY dangerous thing. Best just to leave it alone than try to lock down to a 'MUST buff 2 cards each class to be fair!' The classes are horribly balanced in their base/classic sets, so it makes sense that they may not need the same buffs on each side.
Priest - his classic set SUCKS but can't be easily buffed in long term, but I did find 2 cards worthy low risk buffs.
Shadowform 3-> 2 mana hero power change cards cost 2 in other sets this card is fun to use but costs too much also you lose the healing for using it so.. yeah 2 mana.. still probably not playable but it's a fun card.
That won't really change anything. The proble mwith shadowform isn't the cost: I've seen priests try it and they had no problems casting the spell. The problem is consistency. A '2 damage a turn' priest needs a different deck from a '2 healing a turn' priest, and you can't be sure when you are getting the spell.
Holy Fire 6->5 mana could help priest since this card is played sometimes mostly cause of lack of other alternatives.. value wise 5 damage= 3.5 mana, 5 healing =1 mana bundling cost =0.5 good enough.
I'm ok with this one.
Rogue - just got nerfed but I got some unrelated archtype buffs.
Kidnapper - 5/3-> 5/4 this card is badly stated for it's cost
This won't help. It's 6 mana to sap a minion that requires combo. That's just no.
And I'm afraid of making it cheaper because the last thing rogue needs is MORE tempo.
Patient Assassin - 1/1-> 1/2 it's a small buff but this guy is never played at all I am not sure though since arena exists.. and rogue is strong there..
This is technically fine for the assassin, but goes back to "why ARE we buffing Rogue in the first place?" Blizzard was able to fit in 2 buffs per class in boomsday, but we don't need to stick to that mindlessly. If a class is already strong enough why force yourself to buffing them? If you DO want to buff anything on a strong class, aim for cards that won't help them directly but opens up some fun, if less powerful, alternatives. I can't think of anything fun to do with this one though.
Shaman the overload mechanic was underestimated as a drawback back in classic
Lightning Storm 3->2 mana, this card is not even played in shaman control decks, and is mostly a feelsbad when it is.. would rather lower the overload by 1, but I already stated that I would not change the card text.
Honestly, I would rather find a way to eliminate the randomness, but I can't think of a balanced way to set that. So 2 mana feels ok enough.
Forked Lightning 1->0 mana this card is too weak atm
I'd kill an overload off of it. Yes yes, 'don't change the text' you said. F that. There's no reason to force that on yourself.
0 mana makes it VERY dangerous as a synergy card as all 0 mana cards do. The 2 mana overload meanwhile makes it impossible to use normally. Normally that means "niche" which is great but 0 mana niche turns OP far too fast (i.e. Auctioneer fodder).
1 overload makes it usable for overload synergies and make it about as hard to use as the other overload cards shaman tends to use when embracing overload.
Warlock
Felguard 3->2 mana, if you are destroying one of you mana crystals.. it's better be worth it.. 1 mana "Cheat" for -1 mana the whole game? hell no..
I don't know. That might make it too strong for zoo decks that rely on cheap cards anyway. Otherwise it's far too painful at -1 mana.
I just don't think you can really balance this thing well without completely changing it.
Siphon Soul 6->5 mana overcosted removal, when it was played it was one of the worst cards in warlock..
I'm fine with it costing 6. I'm feeling that warlock shouldn't have easy to use removal. It should be PAINFUL to focus on a removal route and spending a lot of mana is painful. If you want cheap removal, go Rogue or Priest.
Warrior
Mortal Strike 4->3 mana it's a fireball if you are meeting the requirement otherwise it's just an ok card
Mortal Strike imo is exactly where classic should be. The card is in that "*sigh* I guess this will work" place. it should be slightly under balance with expansion cards being ON balance.
Cruel Taskmaster 2/2-> 3/2 more aggressively stated minion.
That I'm actually fine with. Unlike paladin, Warrior doesn't go nuts with any old decent aggressive minion (an expansion made of pirate aggression otoh...) and that card is a little tricky to use. But it DOES open up a bit more that Engra..err the mechanic formally known as Enrage mindset.
Mage
Icicle 2->1 mana worst card in mage, should not cost 2..
Agreed.
Etheral arcanist 3/3-> 3/4 never played card, easi'ish to counter.
NO! *NO!*
The card does NOT need to be anything close to viable. When it actually DOES work it's one of those instawin risks and Edwin. Edwin, though, takes a lot of build up and risk to play him. Arcanist doesn't require more than a secret to stick, which tendss ot happen depending on which secrets are around for mage. There's no good way to make him usable without being broken.
So nevermind buffing. I'm all for just cutting him out of the game before someone figures out a way to make him actually work.
Neutral
Illidan Stormrage 7/5-> 7/6 should be buffed.. I think his text should be more impactful but I can't change it by my own rules.
Honestly I like his minion making thing and I wouldn't dare buff it. honestly I'd rather flip the stats: 5/7, so that his threat comes more from his spawns rather than his attack.
Arcane Golem 3-> 2 mana if you are giving your opponent a huge upside at least make it worth... was nerfed too hard..
Makes cards that summon random 2 drops stronger and he's still worthless as is.
if you really want to spice him up but keep him Classic viable.. again breaking that silly rule: "both players gain a mana crystal."
Honestly what bugs me about Barnes is in it's low risk factor. In contrast, early game Edwins require holding a hand that's set up specifically for him and leaves you with crap for tempo otherwise. Crazy shouldn't be do or die for the attacker but it should leave you scrambling to recover a bit.
Barnes is 4/5 worth of power at the worst of times and utterly ruins the game when you get lucky. You aren't really losing anything if he misses so he's just a free "do I win" instaroll. If he rolls well and your opponent stops it, you can often be in a BETTER position than them, especially if they had to give up a lot.
Crazy should come at a cost. You should feel good about your chances to win if you disrupt or stop it. You souldn't feel like you have the choice of gaining nothing or losing everything.
No worries. I've had theories and ideas on other games that I'll never get to figure out since I can't really find a desire to play it or can't find the time.
There's too many games to play, things to do, and things to see to really be worried about a single game. Even if this game becomes enjoyable to you, you really aren't 'missing out' by not returning to it so long as what you ARE doing is fun and interesting. I've personally missed entire generations of games PC and console and I've come to terms for it, and that's without actually disliking them.
I sound angry and bothered but really I don't get a lot of places to really get emotional about something, so I'm actually enjoying the debate. If I wasn't I would've stopped reading them rather than reading and responding for 5 years running. Same with hearthstone. I'm here because I enjoy the way I play it. If I can't, I stop. I'm not going to wait for fire emblem heros to not require gallons of my time to 'keep up' or for clash royal to remove its paywall or for me to figure out why I can't find a reason to play magic arena even though I found the game interesting.
Millions of people enjoy those games. And probably most of them are better than when I played it. They can keep enjoying it. I'm enjoying the games I play. And that's that.
Apologies for requesting something that was on the other site but I'll admit that I really REALLY miss that. It was a nice way to tell when someone added to a post when I see a new name up, especially when I post in something then stop seeing my name in the 'last by' column.
Though I guess the real idea is to have some way to know what threads have been updated by looking at the forum (no not a notification or some other page that lists updates) so, whatever way you see fit will work too.
It might come up. Right now we are focused on the villains, who don't have any dragons but DO have the mech loving Dr. Boom. The mech thing is also due to Blizzard wanting to test out buffs and wanted to hit the least effective set in standard that, if it does get strong, has a short lifespan. If Dragons are added and overwhelm thet meta, we'll have 2 years of it (barring nerfs) while mechs die next year no matter what happens.
But yeah. I believe we'll see more dragons when we move to the heros or other more ..dragon like settings this year.
It would take thousands of games to utterly prove it, but we're not really at that point. What we need is just enough games that go over the random expected to show it's something to at least do a bigger test on. It's similar to that bug last year when they made the change to packs that caused most people to get a legendary in the first 10 packs. Right afterwards a few people wondered why they were suddenly getting legendaries early even though they had already opened packs. We brushed it off like..well. like this. Then a few people posted data: they opened 10 packs from each of the 4 sets and stated that they received legendaries in all four.
The first few times it was still doubted but no longer mocked. It also caused a few others to test themselves and post their findings. After a few pages of that, the tide shifted.
Note that no one posted a video so we could've easily said "oh they are just lying." I didn't see anyone claim that, even among the doubters. Meanwhile more and more people kept running the test. Even when a few people posted that they DIDN'T get a legendary, enough did to show that SOMETHING was odd. Reddit eventually ran a survey and found that 75% of the respondents were getting legendaries early.
Blizzard never acknowledged it, and there wasn't some massive 10,000 player study done, but it's generally accepted as a thing that happened.
I saw a similar thing happen in the reverse as well. People declaring that they broke the pity timer. Note that this is a flat out trigger: we've spent years seeing people swear that it didn't exist or they broke the timer only to find out they never really knew how many packs they opened. So we flat out shut down the first few folks who said they broke the timer.
Then came a few that posted data. Again, no video or big study. Just a simple "I use a pity timer and normally things are fine, but it's been 45 packs and nothing." A few of those and while most ignored it not everyone did. Others posted the same, not a vague "I did something and I KNOW I SOOULD GET IT NOW!" or any "OMG GREEDY BLIZZARARADDD!" Just calm statements showing they actually TRIED to keep track. 42 packs. 41 packs. Here I have a spreadsheet of what I opened. After a few pages of that, people stopped mocking it and started thinking it was a bug.
Blizzard never officially declared the pity timer, but they DID post a week later that "some people didn't get the legendary they should get, so here's dust to compensate." By then it was already long accepted as a real thing. That's, again, without video, or viewing the code or anything people keep swearing they have to do to prove anything.
We aren't dense. We aren't blind idiots. We DO listen to data and, as a group, CAN change our beliefs. We don't need a double blind study done by scientists. We don't need Blizzard showing us the code. We don't need video marked by 5 witnesses and a crew of FBI that can prove it wasn't photoshopped.
We just need something, ANYTHING that shows you aren't just some conspiracy theorist or someone who swears that because you got countered in TWO of your games that the entire world is rigged against you as if anything OTHER than a steamroll win is a sign of the Matrix.
I spent years posting in these threads, attempting to reason, to meet these ideas half way, to ask for a follow up. "Do it again, but track it." "just track for a few days and show what you got." "Just do something other than miles of theory of how making a hypercomplicated system of code in order to have high cost legendaries decks be countered by Rares in a homebrew deck can somehow mean massive profits and an exploited population. Just do something other than calling those who don't blindly believe you "fanboys" or "sheep". Just do something other than swearing that you know the truth while bashing us with 'well, no one really knows.' when we reply with anything other than agreement."
I got ONE actual test. **ONE!** And funny enough, it DID suggest something was off. But it was stuck in page 7 of a thread full of fanboy/tinfoilhat mud slinging and wild accusations towards anyone for anyone to notice, and the one who posted it never followed up or posted it anywhere else.
Not long after that, hearthpwn banned the topic, at least when data isn't being presented. Of course, data was NEVER presented in any other thread.
So, from a person old enough to have owned a colecovision when it was new and who spent over 5 years debating over this topic and hearing nearly everything about it.. I'll be blunt.
Take that egotistical Neo-wannabe "I know the truth no one else does" mindset, and these "who can ever know" mealy mouthed mess, and shove them into 4-chan. Take the "no one will believe on matter what" cop-out excuse there too.
If you want to actually DISCUSS about this topic, then actually DO some actually testing. Take a statistics course in Khan academy (just checked, they DO have it). Or just run a #($)#)( deck tracker. Do some actual testing. 100 games. 30 games. Just something more than (#)$) FIVE! Then post it. No, you don't get worshiped for it, but MAYBE we can get a few others to join in if you have something interesting. And if THEY do what you do and SEE what you see, we'll have something real to work off of.
If you don't or can't do this and want to believe anyway, from someone who has a whole host of beliefs I can't prove, you are free to do so and aren't an idiot for doing so. But PLEASE don't be surprised, angry, or ..well, anything when you get no converts. You are free to believe as you like, but WE are free to not believe you. We're fine with it if you are fine with it. Posting about how we SHOULD believe it is NOT acting 'fine' about it. Neither is throwing words like 'triggered lol' like a schoolyard idiot.
This may or may not be the overall feeling of the community. But it IS mine, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one. And you didn't post in the salt thread so you get a whole heaping helping of my 2 cents about it and a hope you get to see the actual humans behind the folks who posts in forums like this one.
TL:DR
Post some #($)#)( data or just let topics like this die, please.
It's a discussion forum and we still don't have a lot of discussion topics as the number of people are still low.
It's also a VERY old and loaded topic from hearthpwn that keeps showing up. We've been debating this topic for the past 5 YEARS in the old forums. To the point where they flat out banned the topic if it didn't come with data.
So it's a trigger yes. Feel free to bring up other ones like offering nerf suggestions for the coin or blaming blizzard for northshire cleric showing up 5 times out of 10 against you.
Year of the dragon doesn't necessarily mean lots of dragons. We didn' t have a raven expansion with YotR.
And we didn't really have any real time with mechs, thanks to boomsday being low power and doing a power reset year. IMO it's a good time for mechs to show up. Beasts will return in due time.
which helps to explain zilliax. Warriors will be 4 times more likely to have warrior mechs than neutral mechs, and zilliax is neutral. Thus you are 4 times less likely to even see a non-neutral mech, nevermind for that mech to be the Zilliax
This is a powerful message here about expectations.
Whenever you do something, you have an expectation of some type. I take a test and expect a B. I go driving and expect not to crash and die. I run this computer and expect not to be beamed away by alien ducks. Whatever your expectation, you are going ot set your anger and joy based on that expectation.
If you, for example, take a test and expect a 70, then a 70 will leave you neutral, less will make you sad or angry and more will make you happy. Thus a 90 would leave you bouncing for joy that you "beat the test!"
OTOH, many people expect perfection. They demand 100 from themselves. For them, 100 becomes the norm. Getting that doesn't bring joy since nothing special has happened or, at best, a soft contentment of things 'being right with the world'. Anything less, though, and you'll feel horrible as things 'went wrong' somewhere. As you can guess, this makes for a much more stressful lifestyle.
Now take this to HS where there is always ALWAYS a % chance of failure and people are bad enough with percentages to not realize that '10%' still means it can happen 20 times in a row.
If you are going into a game expecting a win.. not 'wanting to win' or even 'desparate to win' but thinking that you SHOULD win, then the above ends up the result: wins don't bring joy because things are 'as they should be' while losses feel horribly wrong.
When I was learning to drive I received some very powerful advice: everyone is crazy. If a car is parked by the road, the driver WILL come out in front of you. If you want to change lanes, the driver behind will rush forward. They won't always, but the expected is that they will. Thus when it happens, you already planned for it and everything is normal. If it doesn' thappen then.. yay an easy time driving.
So yes, if you are playing odd paladin then expect for them having Dreadlord. Expect for God mode to kick in. Expect things will turn south until you know it can't. You don't have to PLAN for it. You can play as if they won't come, but don't let yourself expect it SHOULD not come.
And for goodness sakes, don't plan on your plans to work out. Then when they do, you'll actually enjoy it.
Depends. The drive that I think everyone is looking for in a competitive format is the ability to anticipate and counter what their opponent is doing. Thus 'crazy stuff' should be, in most cases, after a point when you or your deck had a reasonable chance of doing something to disrupt or counter the move.
However I will note that in a card game 'anticipate and counter' is mostly handled at the deck crafting level, NOT the game board. Card games are heavily built in a sort of 'pet battle' system. You build your 'pet' up, tweak them, attempt to anticipate your opponent's pets, then plan a strategy to teach your 'pet'. Once the game begins, you let the pet go, whisper "good luck", send them off, then hope for the best. Even in games where you have choices to make in-game, they are mostly there to give you a chance to adapt if things go south. But, in the end, you win off of your choices before the game.
That's where things go tricky. If I built a priest revive deck with 0 removal and lose to a mountain army at turn 5, then that's the fault of the priest deck designer. You did not build your pet up or plan for them to deal with mountain giants at turn 5. You didn't even put any way to adapt and give yourself a chance to turn the tables if things go bad and you face such a mage. You failed to plan for this situation. Your opponent did (by killing you before you start reviving at turn 9). Your opponent has the right to 'crazy stuff' at turn 5.
Thus crazy stuff should be allowed when it punishes decks or playstyles that leave themselves vulnerable to them so long as strategies and decks can be designed to then counter said strategies. If I can build a deck that beats a mountain giant army at turn 5 (either by killing them early, pressuring them so they can't fully commit, or countering the crazy fully) then it's generally ok.
The one addition I'd add is that stopping the crazy shouldn't end the game outright. That's is what makes turn 1 crazy games like unnerfed pirate warrior boring: either you die at turn 1 or you slaughter them after turn 1. Thus if the crazy mode is a one-trick pony deck then that's a problem even if it's stoppable. If the opponent is disadvantaged but CAN recover then it's a good sign of keeping the crazy.
Lastly I think we should not consider 'god mode'. God mode is when a deck gets every single RNG thing going for it. Every good deck, even if it's not designed to be that way WILL have that "OMG I got everything I need instawin!" situation. That's like netdecking: like it or not you have to accept it if you want to play a card game.
TL:DR summary!!
So yeah, it's not a simple matter. 'Crazy things' are more of a standard of how decks just go. Decks are not built to be fair. They are built to be unfair, like being able to nuke 20 mana and 5 cards of stuff with a 2 mana sap. And if your deck can't handle a certain type of crazy it should lose, turn 1 or turn 50 and no you shouldn't have a chance: you're supposed to add one when you build your deck.
Crazy should be something you can build a deck to counter, and it should leave you disadvantaged but not dead if it's stopped. "God mode' is acceptable if it's not too common.
Basically, the technical term for 'Crazy' is 'win condition'. Just about every deck should have it. There's no minimum or maximum time on when it goes. It's more about what you can do about it and what happens if you deal with it than when it goes off.