I crafted this deck and it is really fun to play but I find it not very consistent or at least I am having a hard time getting how to pilot this deck. Maybe I need to be less hesitant to use my conjurers calling on low cost minions?
I play only paper magic. Haven't gotten into Arena yet. I play mostly sealed and draft when I play. I haven't played much lately because of kids but my oldest can read now so I will start teaching him to play magic soon. For constructed formats I like legacy and commander mostly. Dabbled a little in modern but never really got into it. Legacy is just so much more wild and fun for me.
I've only ever played Legacy in proxy form, can't afford the real thing quite yet. I've been enjoying Bomberman Combo with Auriok Salvagers and LED. What do you play in the format?
My go to deck for a really long time in legacy has been BUG Delver. The only cards I am really missing that would make it optimal are the 'goyfs and JTMS. I have the cards and contemplated RUG Delver too. I also would like to build Death and Taxes if I can get the Karakas. For modern I had Karn Tron built but I am way behind the times on that deck and suspect it needs a complete overhaul. I imagine my BUG/RUG Delver decks need some minor tweaking. 'goyf seems to finally be getting to a low enough price point that I can pick up a playset soon.
I play only paper magic. Haven't gotten into Arena yet. I play mostly sealed and draft when I play. I haven't played much lately because of kids but my oldest can read now so I will start teaching him to play magic soon. For constructed formats I like legacy and commander mostly. Dabbled a little in modern but never really got into it. Legacy is just so much more wild and fun for me.
I came to make this suggestion. I am glad I found this thread and I am glad that it is being worked on. It would be really nice to have these features. Keep up the great work Flux!
The trouble is that then becomes a method of card-purchasing (albeit in a fairly lengthy process).
You pay money for the adventure. You complete the adventure.
You then choose a card (obv a legendary) to make golden. You dust said legendary.
You re-craft that legendary (if you want). You then craft any legendary you want.
The cost of a legendary now becomes equivalent to the exact cost of the adventure. This may not sound like much, but it's actually a HUGE deal. It changes everything about the game. The game becomes a form of Pay-To-Win since now you can guarantee a way to buy a specific card. It place a real-world monetary value on legendary cards. This means that obtaining cards in the game has a real-world equivalent value and the game can be legally evaluated as being a form of gambling.
It would then have a knock-on effect of requiring legislation and stringent rules put into place, as well as a new age limit (to prevent children access to gambling). It's a big old kettle of fish right there... ;-)
I don't really buy this explanation because we have the old school adventures which yes they moved away from but those gave you specific cards for a specific price. It isn't a stretch to use that to extrapolate out the same data that you are so against workers having. Basically this has already been done to a point because you buy an adventure (solo content) and are rewarded for your play through with legendaries, epics, rares, and commons.
I think the OP has a good idea. I also think it would be nice if we could add things other than dust into the crafting process like have a legendary and want a golden one? You can pay a straight 1600 dust to upgrade it or something along those lines. The total crafting cost for the golden would remain roughly the same but it would give you a slight bonus on the dust value of the non golden version.
There is a bug involved in this too. I created two new decks after the update. Each one I added some cards then had to take a break and saved the decks before they were finished opting to leave them with less than 30 cards in them. I went back later and filled them to 30 cards and completed the decks. Now whenever I log in the decks show the red numbers in the corner indicating they are not complete and say they are missing cards. I can't play with them and if I click on them it asks me if I want to autocomplete them. If instead of autocompleting I go into my collection and click on the deck it actually does have all 30 cards in it and it registers that and I can play with the deck.
Netdecking has been happening for the entirety of CC games existing. It is just more efficient now with the internet which means it settles faster and the game is solved faster. When I was a kid playing MTG when new cards would come out local tournaments would be chaos for a short period but then it would settle and everyone was playing similar decks. This was before the internet.
I have 4 or 5 waggle picks now. Epics are weird. I wish they would implement a limit on how many of an epic you could get before you wouldn't get anymore. Max it out at 4 or something. I know they stated that they don't want to have a no duplicate rule for epics like they have for legendaries but they could do something similar.
Oops I bought it before I realized there was a giveaway. Darn. Oh well it was a good deal. I rarely buy cards but $1 a pack plus some other extras was worth it. Now I need to figure out a good murloc shaman list since I got the murloc legendary in my packs.
I loved playing magic from the start. I started very early on I think it was '94 or '95 when my cousin introduced me to it. I was about 12 years old. I immediately began collecting cards and playing as much as I could. I remember saving up to buy a $14 pack of Legends one time and it was a big deal for me. I wish I knew how valuable some of the cards would become and put more resources into getting the cards. I played in tournaments and this was before formats or much structure so I was playing with random junk thrown together and my opponent might be throwing down black lotus and moxes. I still love and play magic today. My biggest difficulty though is with two kids I can't really get out to play a paper game. That is why hearthstone has been so fun for me. It is much more simple but it still fits my desire for a card game and is something I can play anytime anywhere.
I don't agree that "duplicate" decks should not be allowed. You end up with a problem then of the person that creates it first dictates how it evolves on the site, at least without a crazy amount of moderation.
The reason the has guides filter exists is to help combat "junk" decks. There are plans for more tools to help people find actual useful content and there will be incentives for people to make good guides. Another thing we currently have is all decks start at zero. If a deck creator really wants to share their deck and let others see it, they're more likely to upvote their own deck. Adding in filters later on that allow users to hide decks with less than a certain score are on the to do list.
Ultimately, people should be allowed to use the site to share their decks and keep a record of decks they enjoyed playing. I think HearthPwn did a very good job with that, it just needs more powerful filters to let people find good content easier. Content discovery is going to be big here instead of simply deck discovery. One thing that will help with this is showcasing related decks on deck pages with a a preference given to decks with guides. We'll also end up having a way for staff, and maybe select community members, to be able to "star" decks to flag them as recommended to the community for having outstanding content.
These are great ideas for the future and I agree with what you said. I would love to have a way to create my own list of "favorite decks" so I can easily go reference them again and see if guides were added or they were modified. Or follow a deck to be alerted with it is updated. Things like that would encourage deck creators to edit previous decks instead of making virtually identical new ones. O
I would also like to be able to sort decks by rating too. It would be nice to click on the rating tab and have it sort lowest to highest or highest to lowest.
I crafted this deck and it is really fun to play but I find it not very consistent or at least I am having a hard time getting how to pilot this deck. Maybe I need to be less hesitant to use my conjurers calling on low cost minions?
My go to deck for a really long time in legacy has been BUG Delver. The only cards I am really missing that would make it optimal are the 'goyfs and JTMS. I have the cards and contemplated RUG Delver too. I also would like to build Death and Taxes if I can get the Karakas. For modern I had Karn Tron built but I am way behind the times on that deck and suspect it needs a complete overhaul. I imagine my BUG/RUG Delver decks need some minor tweaking. 'goyf seems to finally be getting to a low enough price point that I can pick up a playset soon.
I play only paper magic. Haven't gotten into Arena yet. I play mostly sealed and draft when I play. I haven't played much lately because of kids but my oldest can read now so I will start teaching him to play magic soon. For constructed formats I like legacy and commander mostly. Dabbled a little in modern but never really got into it. Legacy is just so much more wild and fun for me.
Speaking of card backs I wish the card back I chose was on my opponents deck not mine since that is the card backs I see.
I also would love to see more gold and dust rewards for daily quests.
I came to make this suggestion. I am glad I found this thread and I am glad that it is being worked on. It would be really nice to have these features. Keep up the great work Flux!
I don't really buy this explanation because we have the old school adventures which yes they moved away from but those gave you specific cards for a specific price. It isn't a stretch to use that to extrapolate out the same data that you are so against workers having. Basically this has already been done to a point because you buy an adventure (solo content) and are rewarded for your play through with legendaries, epics, rares, and commons.
I think the OP has a good idea. I also think it would be nice if we could add things other than dust into the crafting process like have a legendary and want a golden one? You can pay a straight 1600 dust to upgrade it or something along those lines. The total crafting cost for the golden would remain roughly the same but it would give you a slight bonus on the dust value of the non golden version.
There is a bug involved in this too. I created two new decks after the update. Each one I added some cards then had to take a break and saved the decks before they were finished opting to leave them with less than 30 cards in them. I went back later and filled them to 30 cards and completed the decks. Now whenever I log in the decks show the red numbers in the corner indicating they are not complete and say they are missing cards. I can't play with them and if I click on them it asks me if I want to autocomplete them. If instead of autocompleting I go into my collection and click on the deck it actually does have all 30 cards in it and it registers that and I can play with the deck.
Crafted the few pieces I was missing from the temp mage Khagdar and Luna to try it out. Looks like a fun deck.
Netdecking has been happening for the entirety of CC games existing. It is just more efficient now with the internet which means it settles faster and the game is solved faster. When I was a kid playing MTG when new cards would come out local tournaments would be chaos for a short period but then it would settle and everyone was playing similar decks. This was before the internet.
I have 4 or 5 waggle picks now. Epics are weird. I wish they would implement a limit on how many of an epic you could get before you wouldn't get anymore. Max it out at 4 or something. I know they stated that they don't want to have a no duplicate rule for epics like they have for legendaries but they could do something similar.
Oops I bought it before I realized there was a giveaway. Darn. Oh well it was a good deal. I rarely buy cards but $1 a pack plus some other extras was worth it. Now I need to figure out a good murloc shaman list since I got the murloc legendary in my packs.
I really hope this is leading up to a wider release of a new format for everyone. This sounds like an amazing format and so much fun to play.
I loved playing magic from the start. I started very early on I think it was '94 or '95 when my cousin introduced me to it. I was about 12 years old. I immediately began collecting cards and playing as much as I could. I remember saving up to buy a $14 pack of Legends one time and it was a big deal for me. I wish I knew how valuable some of the cards would become and put more resources into getting the cards. I played in tournaments and this was before formats or much structure so I was playing with random junk thrown together and my opponent might be throwing down black lotus and moxes. I still love and play magic today. My biggest difficulty though is with two kids I can't really get out to play a paper game. That is why hearthstone has been so fun for me. It is much more simple but it still fits my desire for a card game and is something I can play anytime anywhere.
These are great ideas for the future and I agree with what you said. I would love to have a way to create my own list of "favorite decks" so I can easily go reference them again and see if guides were added or they were modified. Or follow a deck to be alerted with it is updated. Things like that would encourage deck creators to edit previous decks instead of making virtually identical new ones. O
Flux under the Mr. Chu section you accidentally left in "Druid" instead of Warrior in the line about the hero powers.
"Dalaran Heist Warrior Hero Powers and Starter Decks for Mr. Chu
Mr. Chu has access to 3 hero powers including the basic Druid one."
See bold/underlined part.
Also thanks so much for making this new site and for creating content for it. The breakdown is really nice to see.
I would also like to be able to sort decks by rating too. It would be nice to click on the rating tab and have it sort lowest to highest or highest to lowest.