I've had success in expeditions with very different deck strategies: Anivia control decks, Noxus aggro decks, Demacia army decks, Lux/Ezreal/Heimerdinger spell decks - even a Teemo deck with a heavy poison shroom focus worked pretty well (5 wins, I believe). I think a lot of different strategies can thrive in this format, because the handful of dominant meta decks can't easily be replicated in Expeditions.
You're right, though - if your opponent drafts a very strong assortment of aggressive early-game minions, there's not much you can do. As Sanns said, that's the RNG nature of a draft mode. Don't worry yourself too much about it; chances are your next opponent won't have a perfect lineup like that.
I think I'm with you and 40, but to attempt devil's advocate: [...]
A valiant effort :). I still think I have a very different mentality in this regard. I know many people these days view practically any kind of nerf as "the developers ruining their fun" - they don't grasp that a healthy game balance requires buffs and nerfs in equal measure. I witnessed this first-hand with the baffling outrage in the Borderlands 3 community; for once, the developer Gearbox started actively tuning different weapons, skills, etc. right from the game's launch - which I appreciate a lot -, and people immediately got hung up on their favorite weapon(s) being "ruined" when the devs adjust the numbers to bring it back in line with the rest of the arsenal (In this case, unlike your example, they didn't even pay real money for the items in question).
Me, I'm just glad to see any developer put effort into properly balancing their game. Yeah, of course Riot will still stumble and over- or undertune certain cards, but they can always catch those outliers with the next patch. I have faith that they'll be doing a good job, and I have no qualms with the cards I'm using getting nerfed if it's justified. Oh, and I also don't have any aspirations to climb the ladder, so that's a moot point for me.
It's great if you need to remove a strong attacker and prepare for your own game-ending attack the next round. There's also the nice side effect that, even if the unit eventually gets freed, Detain resets any buffs to it. So capturing a super-buffed Fiora, Kinkou Lifeblade, etc. feels super satisfying.
I'd say given the cheaper mana cost compared to Vengeance, it's a decent choice. At least I've picked it in several exploration runs and haven't regretted it (It works great in an all-or-nothing Fiora deck since your game is essentially over if Fiora is killed, anyway).
I continue to be firmly confident in the meta resolving itself without balance changes. Probably in the form of Hecarim-centric Ephemeral decks steamrolling the Elusives.
I'm unconvinced this will be healthy for the game. If elusive decks dominate 90% of their matchups and are only countered by one specific deck archetpye (let's assume Hecarim ephemeral as you mentioned), that's not good balance. Riot explicitly stated they want a variety of different deck builds to be viable. I think to that end, they'll have to tweak something about either the stronger elusive followers or about the elusive mechanic in general.
Then again, I'm just arguing based on what I've been hearing about elusives recently. I mostly play expeditions and a couple of normals, but barely any ranked games. So I don't go up against this deck archetype nearly as often as some other people do.
The list in your first post looks somewhat similar to my main deck, except that I've moved away from Frostbite cards and that I still don't have a single Anivia; I'm running Braum (coupled with Take Heart) instead for some early-game damage soaking.
The one Frostbite card I'm still running is Winter's Breath, just because it's a straight-up board wipe on the opponent's side once you have a level 2 Karma in play. It's rather lackluster on its own, but when things go right, the combo may win you the match right there.
I also wish I had a 2nd She Who Wanders, but I don't want to commit to spending an epic wildcard on her yet since I only have a precious few of those.
I've been playing the game a lot since the open beta launch (western Europe), and I haven't experienced any connection issues whatsoever. The only technical issue was a single game crash. Starting it back up allowed me to reconnect right away, although I did miss one round in the process.
Personally, I like the dismissal of neutral cards from a design perspective. It makes each region's identity/profile that much sharper. Also, personally, I like that it makes deckbuilding less complicated/time-consuming by reducing the total number of cards to choose from, but that's obviously not a balance argument.
I believe as long as Riot don't drop the ball on card buffs and nerfs, other regions shouldn't need very specific tools to counter very specific deck strategies; they could just build the own deck archetypes that are equally as strong. Like, if elusives cost more, did less damage to the nexus, or were weakened in some other way, different types of aggro decks might be able to more consistently outpace them. Or control decks might survive for longer if nexus healing was cheaper / more plentiful.
Then again, there are just the thoughts of little old me playing for fun and not really being interested in ranked games. Guess life is tougher when you permanently have to deal with the next big thing in the metagame.
Playing big, powerful spells MUST have an opportunity cost beyond just the mana expenditure. There MUST be an inherent risk.
Following your line of reasoning, that opportunity cost only exists when playing against an Ionia deck. I think that's a problem as it's not "inherent".
I'm with FortyDust. Maybe I just don't get the mentality of today's playerbase (in Hearhtstone, for instance), but I think expecting compensation from a developer for nerfing a card that you own is the definition of entitlement. The devs aren't maliciously stripping your hard-earned cards of their power - they're balancing the game to bring it into a better state. If nerfs are handled competently, the affected cards won't become unplayable, they'll become fairer. A developer giving out refunds/rewards for that seems asinine to me, and I think it's sad that some devs feel forced to do so in order to retain customers.
Quote From sintiI think guys talked about this on Discord today, if you Purify Shark Chariot, it comes back anyway, since the card is restored to default status in graveyard > has its text back.
That makes sense. Although from a balancing perspective, I'd prefer it if Purify did prevent Shark Chariot from coming back.
maybe the only way to actually tie a game is to deal damage to both nexuses at the same time, there's currently only one card that does it in the caskets.. SO maybe it's possible.. but it's a fringe case atm cause nobody is playing casket seller atm
Aside from a single card that deals damage to both nexi, there are combinations of cards that could create the same scenario. If both players have a Phantom Prankster and a 1- or 2-health unit, both nexi are at 1 HP, one one players plays Avalanche, the game should result in a tie to my understanding. Unless AoE spells kill units in sequential order, like how combat strikes resolve sequentially from left to right.
With regard to sinti's comment, I'll go ahead and say I prefer it this way (spells resolving before combat attacks start). It's logically consistent with the game's rules, and I regard the opportunity to kill the opponent in a last-ditch-effort response to their big final attack as a cool possibility. Of course, if aggro decks with direct-damage spells become dominant, I might change my mind on that.
it's exactly the opposite of what you say......once you remove a blocker in mtg the blocked creature can attack
I advise some fact-checking:
Quote From MTG Rules
509.1h An attacking creature with one or more creatures declared as blockers for it becomes a blocked creature; one with no creatures declared as blockers for it becomes an unblocked creature. This remains unchanged until the creature is removed from combat, an effect says that it becomes blocked or unblocked, or the combat phase ends, whichever comes first. A creature remains blocked even if all the creatures blocking it are removed from combat.
Also copying the unit that detained another unit with Shady CharacterCardID or Name also has a detained unit but interestingly, Just one of them gives the detained minion back or it was just a bug that I have experienced.
Very interesting indeed. I'd be inclined to argue that this is the intended outcome. It's not 100% logical, but presumably, the idea behind it is that no matter how many times the captor is copied, there's still only 1 captive in existence.
Spells resolve first and only after minions inflict damage.
This is how I always figured it, too. It seems Riot wanted to eliminate the possibility of 'simultaneous' damage as much as possible. Combat strikes ensue in order from left to right, and spells are resolved before units strike in combat. Whatever deals lethal damage first will instantly decide the winner of the match.
Since there are some units that play with 6-cost spells, that creates a nice threshold and having Deny cancel spells that cost 5 or less seems logical. The enemy has their plans thwarted and in most cases you spend 1-2 less than your opponent. It's either that or Deny could have a variable cost that is equal to the cost of the ability it wants to cancel.
Both of these seem like decent options to me, too.
My question is: Is the throttle really working as intended?
You know, that's in fact exactly what I thought when I first saw the actual numbers of the purchase limit. Riot's goal is a noble one, but I think for the limitation to be meaningful in keeping paying and free players on a more even playing field, they'd have to set it to something like 1 champion, 1 epic, 2 rares, and 3 commons per week.
The way things currently stand, I (as a free player) wouldn't be opposed to removing the limit. As you said, it's only going to fulfill its purpose for a couple of weeks, anyway. In that case, I'd rather let the people who want to spend their money give it to Riot so that they, in turn, can invest more funds into improving and expanding the game.
How about giving the opponent a card draw if the countered spell costs more than 3 mana? Although this wouldn't work with skills (I believe they all have a cost of 0, right?). I generally like the idea, but it would make countering lower-cost spells rather awkward, if not outright disadvantageous.
I guess giving the opponent back some mana would be a decent-ish trade-off, too.
I certainly disagree with calling it "retarded." I wasn't taken aback by this at all since it basically works the same in Magic: The Gathering, (although I'm not a big Magic player by any stretch). I embrace this mechanic as a way to keep the overall power of removal cards in check.
For the record, I've always thought that Counterspell (and most of its derivatives) in Magic is a horribly balanced card. Using that as the measuring bar for cards in other games like Runeterra is a terrible approach in my opinion.
Of course, your mileage may differ - plenty of people enjoy magic, possibly including counterspell cards. But I say Riot shouldn't hold back on making Deny more expensive if it's proving to sap the fun out of this game for so many players and contributing to a lopsided metagame.
I've had success in expeditions with very different deck strategies: Anivia control decks, Noxus aggro decks, Demacia army decks, Lux/Ezreal/Heimerdinger spell decks - even a Teemo deck with a heavy poison shroom focus worked pretty well (5 wins, I believe). I think a lot of different strategies can thrive in this format, because the handful of dominant meta decks can't easily be replicated in Expeditions.
You're right, though - if your opponent drafts a very strong assortment of aggressive early-game minions, there's not much you can do. As Sanns said, that's the RNG nature of a draft mode. Don't worry yourself too much about it; chances are your next opponent won't have a perfect lineup like that.
A valiant effort :). I still think I have a very different mentality in this regard. I know many people these days view practically any kind of nerf as "the developers ruining their fun" - they don't grasp that a healthy game balance requires buffs and nerfs in equal measure. I witnessed this first-hand with the baffling outrage in the Borderlands 3 community; for once, the developer Gearbox started actively tuning different weapons, skills, etc. right from the game's launch - which I appreciate a lot -, and people immediately got hung up on their favorite weapon(s) being "ruined" when the devs adjust the numbers to bring it back in line with the rest of the arsenal (In this case, unlike your example, they didn't even pay real money for the items in question).
Me, I'm just glad to see any developer put effort into properly balancing their game. Yeah, of course Riot will still stumble and over- or undertune certain cards, but they can always catch those outliers with the next patch. I have faith that they'll be doing a good job, and I have no qualms with the cards I'm using getting nerfed if it's justified. Oh, and I also don't have any aspirations to climb the ladder, so that's a moot point for me.
It's great if you need to remove a strong attacker and prepare for your own game-ending attack the next round. There's also the nice side effect that, even if the unit eventually gets freed, Detain resets any buffs to it. So capturing a super-buffed Fiora, Kinkou Lifeblade, etc. feels super satisfying.
I'd say given the cheaper mana cost compared to Vengeance, it's a decent choice. At least I've picked it in several exploration runs and haven't regretted it (It works great in an all-or-nothing Fiora deck since your game is essentially over if Fiora is killed, anyway).
I'm unconvinced this will be healthy for the game. If elusive decks dominate 90% of their matchups and are only countered by one specific deck archetpye (let's assume Hecarim ephemeral as you mentioned), that's not good balance. Riot explicitly stated they want a variety of different deck builds to be viable. I think to that end, they'll have to tweak something about either the stronger elusive followers or about the elusive mechanic in general.
Then again, I'm just arguing based on what I've been hearing about elusives recently. I mostly play expeditions and a couple of normals, but barely any ranked games. So I don't go up against this deck archetype nearly as often as some other people do.
The list in your first post looks somewhat similar to my main deck, except that I've moved away from Frostbite cards and that I still don't have a single Anivia; I'm running Braum (coupled with Take Heart) instead for some early-game damage soaking.
The one Frostbite card I'm still running is Winter's Breath, just because it's a straight-up board wipe on the opponent's side once you have a level 2 Karma in play. It's rather lackluster on its own, but when things go right, the combo may win you the match right there.
I also wish I had a 2nd She Who Wanders, but I don't want to commit to spending an epic wildcard on her yet since I only have a precious few of those.
I've been playing the game a lot since the open beta launch (western Europe), and I haven't experienced any connection issues whatsoever. The only technical issue was a single game crash. Starting it back up allowed me to reconnect right away, although I did miss one round in the process.
Personally, I like the dismissal of neutral cards from a design perspective. It makes each region's identity/profile that much sharper. Also, personally, I like that it makes deckbuilding less complicated/time-consuming by reducing the total number of cards to choose from, but that's obviously not a balance argument.
I believe as long as Riot don't drop the ball on card buffs and nerfs, other regions shouldn't need very specific tools to counter very specific deck strategies; they could just build the own deck archetypes that are equally as strong. Like, if elusives cost more, did less damage to the nexus, or were weakened in some other way, different types of aggro decks might be able to more consistently outpace them. Or control decks might survive for longer if nexus healing was cheaper / more plentiful.
Then again, there are just the thoughts of little old me playing for fun and not really being interested in ranked games. Guess life is tougher when you permanently have to deal with the next big thing in the metagame.
Following your line of reasoning, that opportunity cost only exists when playing against an Ionia deck. I think that's a problem as it's not "inherent".
I'm with FortyDust. Maybe I just don't get the mentality of today's playerbase (in Hearhtstone, for instance), but I think expecting compensation from a developer for nerfing a card that you own is the definition of entitlement. The devs aren't maliciously stripping your hard-earned cards of their power - they're balancing the game to bring it into a better state. If nerfs are handled competently, the affected cards won't become unplayable, they'll become fairer. A developer giving out refunds/rewards for that seems asinine to me, and I think it's sad that some devs feel forced to do so in order to retain customers.
I believe champions are 3000 shards apiece since the open beta launch, no? So they're still identical in price to an expedition.
That makes sense. Although from a balancing perspective, I'd prefer it if Purify did prevent Shark Chariot from coming back.
Aside from a single card that deals damage to both nexi, there are combinations of cards that could create the same scenario. If both players have a Phantom Prankster and a 1- or 2-health unit, both nexi are at 1 HP, one one players plays Avalanche, the game should result in a tie to my understanding. Unless AoE spells kill units in sequential order, like how combat strikes resolve sequentially from left to right.
With regard to sinti's comment, I'll go ahead and say I prefer it this way (spells resolving before combat attacks start). It's logically consistent with the game's rules, and I regard the opportunity to kill the opponent in a last-ditch-effort response to their big final attack as a cool possibility. Of course, if aggro decks with direct-damage spells become dominant, I might change my mind on that.
I advise some fact-checking:
You're welcome.
Very interesting indeed. I'd be inclined to argue that this is the intended outcome. It's not 100% logical, but presumably, the idea behind it is that no matter how many times the captor is copied, there's still only 1 captive in existence.
This is how I always figured it, too. It seems Riot wanted to eliminate the possibility of 'simultaneous' damage as much as possible. Combat strikes ensue in order from left to right, and spells are resolved before units strike in combat. Whatever deals lethal damage first will instantly decide the winner of the match.
Both of these seem like decent options to me, too.
You know, that's in fact exactly what I thought when I first saw the actual numbers of the purchase limit. Riot's goal is a noble one, but I think for the limitation to be meaningful in keeping paying and free players on a more even playing field, they'd have to set it to something like 1 champion, 1 epic, 2 rares, and 3 commons per week.
The way things currently stand, I (as a free player) wouldn't be opposed to removing the limit. As you said, it's only going to fulfill its purpose for a couple of weeks, anyway. In that case, I'd rather let the people who want to spend their money give it to Riot so that they, in turn, can invest more funds into improving and expanding the game.
How about giving the opponent a card draw if the countered spell costs more than 3 mana? Although this wouldn't work with skills (I believe they all have a cost of 0, right?). I generally like the idea, but it would make countering lower-cost spells rather awkward, if not outright disadvantageous.
I guess giving the opponent back some mana would be a decent-ish trade-off, too.
I certainly disagree with calling it "retarded." I wasn't taken aback by this at all since it basically works the same in Magic: The Gathering, (although I'm not a big Magic player by any stretch). I embrace this mechanic as a way to keep the overall power of removal cards in check.
For the record, I've always thought that Counterspell (and most of its derivatives) in Magic is a horribly balanced card. Using that as the measuring bar for cards in other games like Runeterra is a terrible approach in my opinion.
Of course, your mileage may differ - plenty of people enjoy magic, possibly including counterspell cards. But I say Riot shouldn't hold back on making Deny more expensive if it's proving to sap the fun out of this game for so many players and contributing to a lopsided metagame.