What are your thoughts on people who surrender instead of taking a fatal blow
Game ends faster since it skips animations, some champions even level up after the nexus drops bellow 0. But more often then not is butthurt, myself included
I look data from different sites and cross examinate with my ranked games.
I disagree with Corina being the TOP S tier. Its S tier for sure, but i barely see it at all at high level games. The 4 decks i face the most, in order, are: 1- Burn Agro; 2- Banner; 3- Ez/Karma; 4- Lee/Vi (it is a S tier deck btw, don't trust everything other people say, even me. Its at least MUCH BETTER then Deep Monsters).
As luck would have it, I accidentally tested this the other day. The heal is only for the damage that is actually dealt to an enemy. After barrier, my overwhelm unit dealt 3 damage to the enemy nexus, and that's how much I healed for.
Yeah, i was expecting it would work exactly like that. Thank You.
Really? Granted, I've been playing mostly unranked games, but I'm seeing almost constant Noxus+P&Z burn and Demacia Bannerman--very few control decks in sight.
Same in ranked.
While Noxus+P&Z is the deck i face the most and banner in second, meisterz39 is right about Ionia/SI being a bit stronger then others. With the exception of exactly those 2, all other top 10 meta decks run either Ionia or SI.
I'm not a good player by any means (Gold at the moment) but I feel like the main issue why Burn is a problem (and even why there are minimal viable Control and Combo decks) is direct Nexus damage and by extension - the low Nexus health.
The problem is that every single card is too efficient, as it can deal at least 2 points of direct damage.
The only way to counter direct damage is through heal. But aggro pays 2 mana to deal 2 points of nexus damage (1:1 ratio) or more, and those units stay on the field for potencial damage snowball. On top of that some 1 mana units are very hard to remove on T1 and can easily deal 4+ damage.
With a few exceptions, Heal has a 1:1~1:2 ratio, wich is inefficient as other card games have at least 1:2~1:4 ratio. Unlike aggro, heal cards do not snowball (heal everyturn) outside of lifesteal followers. Finally, not every card in your deck will heal and not every faction has acess to early heal options anyway, so it becomes impossible to catch up with their damage.
Rest assured this deck will be nerfed in the next patch.
Branching Paths is a poor example as it is the best self-heal card in the game, and comes in the best form of armor gain so it can overheal. The bundle makes it even more powerfull as its possible to convert into card advantage or board pressure when heal isn't needed. Branching is not situational and never a dead card like Pilfered can be sometimes. Also, picking alternating effects was somewhat unusual, players very often chose the same effect twice.
Back to my example, you seem to not realize that 90% of cards stolen from burn decks won't help change the outcome of the match. They are just as useless as all the cards you listed. The difference would not reach even 1% WR. From a statistical perspective, generating a random card won't help either the huge majority of the time... BUT, when you do get something relevant, it may turn the tides of the battle.
As for the topic at hand, I think all deck-attacks are frustrating to deal with, so I totally agree with the premise. You use your stuff, I'll use my stuff, and we'll see which is better. Leave my stuff alone.
But what if i like your stuff. Don't be selfish, lets share the goods dude ;)
I think we're kind of talking across purposes here. You seem to be arguing that it's not a big deal because you might have never drawn the card anyway, and that they're effectively random cards for your opponent. On those points, I mostly agree, with one major caveat.The cards they steal may have no meaningful synergies with their decks, but they're better than random because you put them in your deck, so they're most like getting "good random" cards, with the upshot of potentially denying you something important.
No, they are better then random. Now that i think about it, they are even worse then random unless its a mirror match. Why? Because followers in this game have a role in the deck they are fit in. The game is balanced enough units are not being played for their stats/curve ratio. A unit that is good enough to see play in a given deck, won't usually see play in other decks unless its fullfilling the same role. Take a burn deck as an example. If you could pick, which cards would you steal from their deck? 90% of their cards are actually garbage for your gameplan. They work very well for their strategy but not for yours. Worse then random, as random cards may actually give you a shot to some counters. This isn't hearthstone, were there is so much imbalance/power creep that minions like Sylvanas/Ragnaros/Piloted Shredder/etc are so much better then everything else that fit just fine in any deck.
Quote From <a href=
Disruption is good/healthy for CCGs, but disruption that also generates card advantage should be very limited/very expensive. Comparing to Hearthstone, while there are a variety of ways to waste or destroy combo tools your opponent is using, there's basically no card theft in the game. Even in the classes which can "steal," they get copies of their opponent's cards. This is because, regardless of its impact statistically on the game, it feels really bad for the player whose cards get stolen.
Entomb, Mind Control, Shadow Madness [Hearthstone Card (Cabal ShadowPriest) Not Found] [Hearthstone Card (Sylvanas) Not Found] can steal cards from play, while there is a few that can burn directly from the deck. If both effects already exists in the game, why the combination of the 2 is a problem?
Quote From <a href=
Some reasons this is so frustrating to me:
Card draw in Runeterra is quite limited. A lot of cards that draw do not generate meaningful card advantage because they're just cantrips (e.g. Avarosan Sentry), and the ones that do are generally expensive, around a "4 mana draw 2" going rate. So, these klepto cards are some of the most efficient ways to generate card advantage, and the fact that they're probably "good random" cards as far as your opponent is concerned makes them very valuable. The result is a sense that your opponent is often better at drawing cards from you than you are, which feels pretty bad
There are strategies for which the "imagine these are the bottom cards of the deck" really breaks down. For example, Freljord has ways to put Yetis on top of your deck and buff cards near the top of your deck. These strategies generally involve playing weaker units/expensive spells up front for those future payoffs. It's a major part of the Freljord identity, and stealing from the top of the deck is uniquely punishing for those strategies.
It just feels really bad to see your opponent get your strong cards and know that you can't get them. This is true even if it's not statistically significant in terms of your win rates against klepto decks. It's probably very fun for the klepto deck, and can make for an interesting gameplay puzzle to solve on their end, but that spike in the klepto player's happiness is mirrored by a massive drop in the happiness of the player from whom they stole cards.
1- Maybe you are not used to play the card yourself. Activating plunder is manageble but not free. It usually has to be played in combination with other cards so it has an "extra" cost. Sometimes it will just not be possible to plunder and its a dead card, other times when you do plunder, might be a thought decision to either contest the board or play the card. And its much harder to plunder when defending. There are so many potencial downsides not to mention thats no guarantee what you get is even usefull.
2- I agree but i don't see a problem with this card being a counter against it. Freljord also have Ashe and Warmother, stealing from those decks is quite bad.
3- Why it feels bad my friend. Its part of the game. It won't occur everytime, and when that happens, its his time to have fun. Don't give up and show him you can play whats left from your deck better then he does. Its not like you lost already, man up and fight!
Mine was against an infinite Mushroom Teemo lock down.
While my opponent was doing his thing, i decided not to concede so i took a break and let him have his fun. Came back 2 hours later and he was still playing the combo... what a persistent guy indeed!
In my opinion is just a perspective issue... just think the cards they take are in the botton of your deck so you would not draw them anyway. What they get from your deck most of the time don't synergyse well with their deck. Getting 2 random cards is much worse then drawing 2 cards.
Yes, it can disrupt combos sometimes, but i don't think the idea of a card that can randomly interrupt plays is bad at all.
Glen is right about the attack token advantage. In any symmetrical game, the player with initiative always holds the advantage.
The problem here is that the games you're comparing this to (MTG, Hearthstone) are fundamentally asymmetric.
No, i am comparing to trully symmetrical games, like Chess. The simpler a game is to solve, the iniciative advantage becomes more evident. Tic tac toe is a great example of a game that showcases the power of going first. But even in complex games like chess, its a well know fact the white pieces have a higher winrate over black pieces. Any Game Theory Optimal book can explain this concept better if you are interested.
Despite quoting this specific part, know that your posts are good and demonstrate some deep grasp about the game. I enjoy reading them very much =P
The best tip against The Ruination is always remember it costs 9 mana.
When you have a decent board and you both have 9 mana+ in the bank, always consider to pass your turn without spending a single mana. So keep passing until he drops under 9 mana, as he can't pass forever or your units will eventually overwhelm him. When he does play The Ruination, you will have 9+ advantage to do plays or rebuild the board.
Glen is right about the attack token advantage. In any symmetrical game, the player with initiative always holds the advantage.
Power Spike in this game is heavily focused on attacking with odd (Zed) or even (Elise). So there is only 4 possible outcomes: 1- > 1st- odd vs odd - 2nd; 2 -> 1st- odd vs even- 2nd; 3 -> 1st- even vs odd- 2nd; 4 -> 1st- even vs even- 2nd.
Number 1: Aggro vs Aggro mirror. The attack token makes a HUGE difference here as the first player only will get all his power spikes on curve. Number 2: Both players are happy. The token is still a small advantage since the first player gets to put damage in first. Number 3: Both players are unhappy. Notice that despite the even player holding the token, the odd player will get to attack with his power spike first. Number 4: This is the only case going first is no good.
Number 1 is obviously the situation OP is complaining about.
Now, lets try give the player going second compensation. Lets use the Hearthstone "The coin" for simplicity sake. This may or may not make game Number 1 more interesting... but what about game Number 4? The second player already has the advantage. Giving him an extra coin(or any kind of incentive) would be extemely imbalanced.
While i like the idea of giving the second player compensation, how to implement it without generating an even bigger discrepancy?
Game ends faster since it skips animations, some champions even level up after the nexus drops bellow 0.
But more often then not is butthurt, myself included
Then consider emoting AFTER the lethal play, not before, and definitely not when he is still thinking.
This way no one will mistake your intentions.
Why not emote Shen when you are about to lose?Food for thought.
Congrats, thats how properly game etiquete works.
I look data from different sites and cross examinate with my ranked games.
I disagree with Corina being the TOP S tier. Its S tier for sure, but i barely see it at all at high level games.
The 4 decks i face the most, in order, are:
1- Burn Agro;
2- Banner;
3- Ez/Karma;
4- Lee/Vi (it is a S tier deck btw, don't trust everything other people say, even me. Its at least MUCH BETTER then Deep Monsters).
Yeah, i was expecting it would work exactly like that. Thank You.
And thats a BM right there.
Same in ranked.
While Noxus+P&Z is the deck i face the most and banner in second, meisterz39 is right about Ionia/SI being a bit stronger then others. With the exception of exactly those 2, all other top 10 meta decks run either Ionia or SI.
Since its been ressurected, i have a legit question:
What happens when an Overwhelm unit with lifesteal attacks another with barrier?
Does it Heal for the excess damage, full attack or not at all?
The problem is that every single card is too efficient, as it can deal at least 2 points of direct damage.
The only way to counter direct damage is through heal.
But aggro pays 2 mana to deal 2 points of nexus damage (1:1 ratio) or more, and those units stay on the field for potencial damage snowball.
On top of that some 1 mana units are very hard to remove on T1 and can easily deal 4+ damage.
With a few exceptions, Heal has a 1:1~1:2 ratio, wich is inefficient as other card games have at least 1:2~1:4 ratio.
Unlike aggro, heal cards do not snowball (heal everyturn) outside of lifesteal followers.
Finally, not every card in your deck will heal and not every faction has acess to early heal options anyway, so it becomes impossible to catch up with their damage.
Rest assured this deck will be nerfed in the next patch.
The only Bilgewater plunder deck that works is the TF/GP one... and it isn''t that good.
Branching Paths is a poor example as it is the best self-heal card in the game, and comes in the best form of armor gain so it can overheal. The bundle makes it even more powerfull as its possible to convert into card advantage or board pressure when heal isn't needed.
Branching is not situational and never a dead card like Pilfered can be sometimes.
Also, picking alternating effects was somewhat unusual, players very often chose the same effect twice.
Back to my example, you seem to not realize that 90% of cards stolen from burn decks won't help change the outcome of the match. They are just as useless as all the cards you listed. The difference would not reach even 1% WR. From a statistical perspective, generating a random card won't help either the huge majority of the time... BUT, when you do get something relevant, it may turn the tides of the battle.
But what if i like your stuff.
Don't be selfish, lets share the goods dude ;)
Was editing my post and it disappeared somehow... sigh
No, they are better then random. Now that i think about it, they are even worse then random unless its a mirror match.
Why? Because followers in this game have a role in the deck they are fit in. The game is balanced enough units are not being played for their stats/curve ratio. A unit that is good enough to see play in a given deck, won't usually see play in other decks unless its fullfilling the same role.
Take a burn deck as an example. If you could pick, which cards would you steal from their deck? 90% of their cards are actually garbage for your gameplan. They work very well for their strategy but not for yours. Worse then random, as random cards may actually give you a shot to some counters.
This isn't hearthstone, were there is so much imbalance/power creep that minions like Sylvanas/Ragnaros/Piloted Shredder/etc are so much better then everything else that fit just fine in any deck.
Entomb, Mind Control, Shadow Madness [Hearthstone Card (Cabal ShadowPriest) Not Found] [Hearthstone Card (Sylvanas) Not Found] can steal cards from play, while there is a few that can burn directly from the deck.
If both effects already exists in the game, why the combination of the 2 is a problem?
1- Maybe you are not used to play the card yourself. Activating plunder is manageble but not free. It usually has to be played in combination with other cards so it has an "extra" cost. Sometimes it will just not be possible to plunder and its a dead card, other times when you do plunder, might be a thought decision to either contest the board or play the card. And its much harder to plunder when defending. There are so many potencial downsides not to mention thats no guarantee what you get is even usefull.
2- I agree but i don't see a problem with this card being a counter against it. Freljord also have Ashe and Warmother, stealing from those decks is quite bad.
3- Why it feels bad my friend. Its part of the game. It won't occur everytime, and when that happens, its his time to have fun. Don't give up and show him you can play whats left from your deck better then he does. Its not like you lost already, man up and fight!
Nice game!
Mine was against an infinite Mushroom Teemo lock down.
While my opponent was doing his thing, i decided not to concede so i took a break and let him have his fun.
Came back 2 hours later and he was still playing the combo... what a persistent guy indeed!
Can you elaborate why you do feel frustrated?
In my opinion is just a perspective issue... just think the cards they take are in the botton of your deck so you would not draw them anyway.
What they get from your deck most of the time don't synergyse well with their deck. Getting 2 random cards is much worse then drawing 2 cards.
Yes, it can disrupt combos sometimes, but i don't think the idea of a card that can randomly interrupt plays is bad at all.
No, i am comparing to trully symmetrical games, like Chess.
The simpler a game is to solve, the iniciative advantage becomes more evident.
Tic tac toe is a great example of a game that showcases the power of going first.
But even in complex games like chess, its a well know fact the white pieces have a higher winrate over black pieces.
Any Game Theory Optimal book can explain this concept better if you are interested.
Despite quoting this specific part, know that your posts are good and demonstrate some deep grasp about the game.
I enjoy reading them very much =P
The best tip against The Ruination is always remember it costs 9 mana.
When you have a decent board and you both have 9 mana+ in the bank, always consider to pass your turn without spending a single mana.
So keep passing until he drops under 9 mana, as he can't pass forever or your units will eventually overwhelm him.
When he does play The Ruination, you will have 9+ advantage to do plays or rebuild the board.
Even if It could work well for a couple combos... someday there would be so many it would be hard to remember.
Glen is right about the attack token advantage.
In any symmetrical game, the player with initiative always holds the advantage.
Power Spike in this game is heavily focused on attacking with odd (Zed) or even (Elise).
So there is only 4 possible outcomes:
1- > 1st- odd vs odd - 2nd;
2 -> 1st- odd vs even- 2nd;
3 -> 1st- even vs odd- 2nd;
4 -> 1st- even vs even- 2nd.
Number 1: Aggro vs Aggro mirror. The attack token makes a HUGE difference here as the first player only will get all his power spikes on curve.
Number 2: Both players are happy. The token is still a small advantage since the first player gets to put damage in first.
Number 3: Both players are unhappy. Notice that despite the even player holding the token, the odd player will get to attack with his power spike first.
Number 4: This is the only case going first is no good.
Number 1 is obviously the situation OP is complaining about.
Now, lets try give the player going second compensation. Lets use the Hearthstone "The coin" for simplicity sake.
This may or may not make game Number 1 more interesting... but what about game Number 4?
The second player already has the advantage. Giving him an extra coin(or any kind of incentive) would be extemely imbalanced.
While i like the idea of giving the second player compensation, how to implement it without generating an even bigger discrepancy?