Another Dev Opps

Community Discussion
1

User played: Lady Dark vein, effect, summon 2x 2/1 shades that gain the DEATHrattle of the last shadow spell cast.

Sure, ok. it’s a DEATHRATTLE, so it doesn’t happen until they DIE.

Yeah No. as soon as it finished the summons, it immediately triggered for each shade, causing it to place 4 (four) plagues in my deck. It then placed two more each when they died.

WTF Bliz, I spent 150 coins to end up vs either a cheater/hacker, or a user that is exploiting your failures.

Are you gonna give me 150 coins back? NO! Are you going to ban this player and their CC? No. Are you expecting me to spend money on your game and watch Esports content so you can receive endorsements? YES. Is it gonna happen? NO!

Here’s the replay: hsreplay net/replay/dABRaQtwXGCLEeUkcoqz9j

Log:

Loucobr plays [Lady Darkvein]

Loucobr steals [Lady Darkvein] using [Lady Darkvein]

Loucobr steals [Curse of Agony]

Loucobr steals [Dark Bidding]

a card summons [Shadow Manifestation]

a card summons [Shadow Manifestation]

Loucobr steals [Shadow Manifestation]

Loucobr steals [Shadow Manifestation]

Loucobr steals [Dark Bidding]

Loucobr plays [Curse of Agony]

Loucobr steals [Curse of Agony] using [Curse of Agony]

Loucobr steals [Robes of Shrinking] using [Curse of Agony]

[Agony] is added to DukeNukem’s deck

DukeNukem steals [Agony]

[Agony] is added to DukeNukem’s deck

DukeNukem steals [Agony]

[Agony] is added to DukeNukem’s deck

DukeNukem steals [Agony]

Edit: Really? None of the forum trash talkers who upvote and heart them selves and flag posts that they can’t refute or come up with a valid argument have anything to say?

WoW!

1 Like
2

You are mistaken. The shades repeat the last shadow spell that was cast.

Your opponent played Lady Darkvein and then Curse of Agony. This shuffled 3 curses into your deck bringing your deck size from 18 to 21.

Then you killed the 2 shades which changed the size of your deck from 20 to 26 since 6 Curses were shuffled into your deck because Curse of Agony was the last shadow spell your opponent has cast.

1 Like
3

Yes, but it is a DEATH RATTLE effect. Which means that it only triggers on DEATH

No, you are WRONG

" Battlecry: Summon two 2/1 Shades. Each gains a Deathrattle to cast your last Shadow spell."

They gain a DEATHRATTLE (which only triggers on death - not on played), that casts the last spell.

There is NO reason why they should both cast the spell on summon rather than on DEATH which is when a DEATHRATTLE is triggered.

cite: " hearthstone fandom com/wiki/Lady_Darkvein "

Where in the play log (you can get it yourself from the link above if you doubt my authenticity) do you see that I played or did anything prior to four agony’s being shuffled into my deck after Lady vein was played and prior to the shades dieing?

For your benefit:

LOG AGAIN:

Log:

Loucobr plays [Lady Darkvein]

Loucobr steals [Lady Darkvein] using [Lady Darkvein]

Loucobr steals [Curse of Agony]

Loucobr steals [Dark Bidding]

a card summons [Shadow Manifestation]

a card summons [Shadow Manifestation]

Loucobr steals [Shadow Manifestation]

Loucobr steals [Shadow Manifestation]

Loucobr steals [Dark Bidding]

Loucobr plays [Curse of Agony]

Loucobr steals [Curse of Agony] using [Curse of Agony]

Loucobr steals [Robes of Shrinking] using [Curse of Agony]

[Agony] is added to DukeNukem’s deck

DukeNukem steals [Agony]

[Agony] is added to DukeNukem’s deck

DukeNukem steals [Agony]

[Agony] is added to DukeNukem’s deck

DukeNukem steals [Agony]

END LOG AGAIN

I never killed them, they placed four curses in my deck as soon as they were summoned, NOT on DEATH which would trigger a DEATHRATTLE

4

Watch the replay. It did not trigger when played.

Your opponent did cast the Curse of Agony from his hand. It was done in round 3 and then again in round 5.

The only thing that puzzles me is why Curse of Agony was cast with 0 mana.

5

That’s because the shade cast it in round 5 when it was summoned.

The more indepth LOG:

DukeNukem steals [Mmm, so tasty!]

[Observer of Myths] gains +1 attack

[Observer of Myths] gains +1 attack

Turn 5: Loucobr

Loucobr ends their turn

[Starlight Whelp] dies

[Mischievous Imp] dies

Loucobr draws [Curse of Agony] from [Robes of Shrinking Player Enchantment]

Loucobr plays [Lady Darkvein]

Loucobr steals [Lady Darkvein] using [Lady Darkvein]

Loucobr steals [Curse of Agony]

Loucobr steals [Dark Bidding]

a card summons [Shadow Manifestation]

a card summons [Shadow Manifestation]

Loucobr steals [Shadow Manifestation]

Loucobr steals [Shadow Manifestation]

Loucobr steals [Dark Bidding]

Loucobr plays [Curse of Agony]

Loucobr steals [Curse of Agony] using [Curse of Agony]

Loucobr steals [Robes of Shrinking] using [Curse of Agony]

[Agony] is added to DukeNukem’s deck

DukeNukem steals [Agony]

[Agony] is added to DukeNukem’s deck

DukeNukem steals [Agony]

[Agony] is added to DukeNukem’s deck

DukeNukem steals [Agony]

DukeNukem steals [Agony]

Turn 5: DukeNukem

DukeNukem ends their turn

DukeNukem draws [Melted Maker]

DukeNukem steals [Melted Maker]

DukeNukem plays [Cyclopian Crusher]

DukeNukem steals [Higher Influence] using [Cyclopian Crusher]

[Observer of Myths] gains +1 attack from [Cyclopian Crusher]

DukeNukem steals [Higher Influence] using [Cyclopian Crusher]

DukeNukem steals [Higher Influence] using [Cyclopian Crusher]

[Observer of Myths] gains +1 attack from [Cyclopian Crusher]

[Cyclopian Crusher] gains +1 attack from [Cyclopian Crusher]

DukeNukem plays [Cyclopian Crusher]

[Observer of Myths] gains +1 attack from [Cyclopian Crusher]

DukeNukem steals [Higher Influence] using [Cyclopian Crusher]

DukeNukem steals [Higher Influence] using [Cyclopian Crusher]

[Observer of Myths] gains +1 attack from [Cyclopian Crusher]

[Cyclopian Crusher] gains +1 attack from [Cyclopian Crusher]

DukeNukem steals [Higher Influence] using [Cyclopian Crusher]

[Cyclopian Crusher] attacks [Lady Darkvein]

[Cyclopian Crusher] attacks [Lady Darkvein] for

END of more indepth log?

I didn’t kill a shade until after they were played in my turn 5 after their turn 5, so why was it playing agony if i didn’t kill it?

6

The problem is round 3.

Why was Curse of Agony cast for 0 mana in round 3? I don’t see any mana reduction going on here.

And then again in round 5. The function of Lady Darkvein and the shades is correct but how was Curse of Agony cast for 0 mana?

7

Because it’s DUELS, they had (it seems) Robes of Shrinking. You would see that if you bothered to look at the HSreplay net I linked above)

After you draw a spell, reduce its Cost by (1) this turn.

The curse in round 5 was incorrectly triggered. A deathrattle that triggers a previously casted spell, means the spell costs 0 mana. It is dependent upon the minion dieing, thus deathrattle effect occurs, and thus the spell is cast free of charge.

My issue is, that the summoned minion (shade) that did not die, and received curse of agony as it’s deathrattle, cast it immediately upon summon, and then again upon it’s death during my turn of round 5 which occurred after the opp’s turn in round 5 which occurred before me. IE 2 shades summone, 4 agonies put in my deck, my turn 2 shades killed, 4 more agonies put in my deck. it’s all there via the link. pause it and manually scroll through the match via the bottom. You don’t need to take my word for it.

Either it’s a hack (highly doubtful) or it’s just a dev’s failure with coding the mechanics (most likely) either way, I’m out a loss of 3 max in a duels that I paid 150coin for.

WTG BLIZZ, screw your customers, don’t penalize the abusers, don’t compensate the victims, continue to bombard victims with incessant adverts about spending money on card packs.

Yeah… my names “Tucker - not Sucker”

You know it’s funny (not really) but this usually happens on the weekends, and more commonly on SUNDAYS! Cause like who wants to work on a weekend. It’s like the hackers, cheaters, exploiters, and bot using players, are well aware that on Saturday and Sunday, the chances of a Blizzard employee monitoring, playing a game is virtually NIL, and seem to be more active or more prone to utilizing such methods because they know the chances of someone in power is most likely not working. You’d think that Bliz would be aware and make sure they had REAL people actively combating this stuff, but no, who wants to come in to work on a Saturday or Sunday? Not many. and hence it goes unchecked.

And just for the record, for the last two years I’ve worked Saturdays, and pre-pandemic, I worked them for almost 5 years.

8

No need to be passive agressive. I never played Duels. I’m not familiar with that mode.

But Curse of Agony beeing reduced to 0 mana by the Robe solves this entire issue.

Round 3: Your opponent draws Curse of Agony, plays it for 0 mana and changes your deck size from 17 to 20 since 3 curses were shuffled into your deck.

Round 5: Your opponent plays Lady Darkvein for 5 mana and Curse of Agony for 0 mana which changes your deck size from 18 to 21 since 3 curses were shuffled into your deck.

If the deathrattle of the shades would have been triggered immediately after beeing put on the field then your deck size should be higher than 21 but it is not.

The deathrattles of the shades only trigger during your turn in round 5 when you are killing the shades with your own minions which changes your deck size from 20 to 26 since 6 curses were shuffled into your deck which is the correct amount.

There is no hacking or cheating going on here.

1 Like
9

I think is like Joachim says … i add some extra considerations

  • on first game we can expect he have only 1 Curse of agony (becouse of single card duel rule) , but based of hero hp for sure there was some bucket selections and so is possible deck have multiple curse of agony
  • hsreplayviewer is a good tool but not 100% perfect , so it can miss some passive threasures , as DukeNukem noticed we see “Robes of Shrinking” is applied from logs but replayviewer don’t show the normal passive threasure animation at start of game.
    Another problem is the cost reduction is not show for cards in hand , but we notice curse cost 0 only on play.
    On turn 3 and 5 opponent clearly used Curse from hand , becouse on play he shows a 0 mana cost.
    On turn 5b we notice hsreplay dont show Curse card animation when deathrattle dies , we notice it from logs or from deck remaining card size. ( this again proofs deathrattle was not triggered before , becouse at start of turn 5 the card animation was visible , and deathrattles don’t show it ).
10

Wow how did I miss that. I dunno must have queued cards faster than bliz could transmit their play, and all just went by in a woosh.

11

This is hysterical nonsense; you were not cheated in any way, shape or form.

If you can’t overcome this, then you need to play something else.

12

i think hes trolling

this is the second thread like this he posts

both witha false claim and a replay

1 Like
13

mb he tilts so much and cant stay calm and slowly check the replay.
At least he came here with a replay to show us , i dont think trolls do that.

2 Likes
14

one thread is tittled "another dev oops " and the other "another cheater or dev fail caught "

i didnt think he was trolling until read the second thread

1 Like
15

Unfortunately, this is the only troll here. He has frequently shown up in threads with comments like these trying to goad people into responses that could get them in trouble and basically turns a thread into a flame war.

If you want to complain about trolls, complain about this user. I only call it like I see it, until I can be pointed to something that I can verify independently I will intensely hold my view.

This user seems more interested in telling players to play something else, rather than the topic of the thread. He has provided no supporting arguments, facts or evidence to support his claim, and is simply his opinion, which he has used to try and circumvent the ‘off topic’ rules solely for the purpose of adding the ‘go play something else’ type comment, (which is not needed) which is intended as I said above.

Don’t bother replying to me or him about it, just flag his post and ignore him.

Even this user is straying in to trolling also. Two posts, both accusing me of trolling. Seems like they are trying very hard to upset me and respond with a flame like post that would get me silenced or banned. Neither of these posts are on topic, so why bother? They do not contribute anything worth while to the topic.

Again another comment that contributes nothing worth while to the topic. It appears that he and Boreas have taken Mountaineer’s bait. Boreas has changed the thread to discussing if I’m trolling, rather than the topic. And crowd mentality has set in and Cece joins in. Using terms like “tilts” and “can’t stay calm” are direct commentary on me personally rather than anything to do with the topic.

I’ve been banned for saying things about other users specifically rather than the topic, I’m sure moderators will exhibit the same and fair examination of your comments and the rules and act accordingly.

1 Like
16

Yeah true, but seems like you missed that the topic was already “closed” this and the other one , with no proof that game was bugged or something was wrong , it can happen for sure but in the games you posted was all ok.
So we don’t interrupt the discussion in the middle going OT like you say.

Another fun thing is you make us notice that we talk about you and not about the topic/bug , and you do the same becouse instead title the threads in a way that is focused of resolving the problem, you start by attacking the developer or calling opponents cheaters even if they do nothing.

17

Exactly!

18

Should also add highly disobliging to people that are kindly trying to help

19

Here’s my two cents

People have tried and seemed to succesfully helped you find a solution that isn’t cheating/hacking. However, you great their kindness with aggressive responses because “IT MUST BE CHEATING/HACKING”.

Essentially, given this post, your history and your rudeness, I’m inclined to believe you were simply looking for an echo chamber but instead found people with reasonable minds and intuition.

1 Like
20

I’m not sure how I could have said this any more clearly? If you have any suggestions for that I’m open to them?