1 Like
A simple NO would have sufficed!
EDIT: actually, I don’t think he would have known the word “sufficed.” I think it was more like “a simple wrong would have been fine”
1 Like
I mean that’s a very straight-forward way to play and is just fundamentally playing solid Hearthstone.
I don’t think there’s any way I could provide every nuance of decision making in Legend (I’ve been in top 1000 and peak was top 200), but often times you just need to race your opponent down because the immediate turn is often times nondeterminate for the macro choices of the game. I would argue that the biggest expression of this is HOW people determine their mulligans. I would submit that you can almost always tell how good a player is based on how they justify their mulligans and that verbalization that streamers do actually helps facilitate processing long-plays.
Right now I am playing Earthen paladin (legend) and mage, but I’ll talk about Earthen paladin for a second. Firstly, I’ve had experience playing the deck as a main since Titans so many of the nuances of the deck are things I’ve ironed out. One of the biggest decisions I have to make with this deck, especially against Death Knight, is how I plan to establish boards that can mitigate Horizon’s Edge damage and a potential Reska swing. Reska basically creates issues at any point post-turn 7 and removes a minion from my rezz pool, so the board swing is bad enough but it makes my subsequent strategies much worse. That means that early in the game I need to establish an overwhelming board presence and thin my deck out with cards like Silverwing and Grill Master so I can filter and get a 4 or 5 drop to use with Cubicle. IDEALLY I Cubicle a Kangor if it’s against plagues (this situation is an autowin regardless of if they Reska or not because I will at some point have 2-3 Kangor’s and they lose any hope of reaching for lethal) or against Razzle I need to try and aim for Amitus or Annoy-o-Troupe so that I can clear their boards.
Another huge thing I need to do against any Reno deck is stop playing for value and force them to remove my minions every turn so that they can’t Mirin until it’s awkwardly late and then I can drop a Tyr or Tyr’s Tear and delay that turn. I’ll usually filter for single copies of deathrattle minions that way if they Reno I don’t lose my entire card pool and start using Cubicle on more tempo oriented minions instead of value since I know Boomboss usually comes after the Reno (against Warrior).
My point here is that the idea of best and worst case scenarios really ONLY matter on turns where you need to make decisions on if you are trying to reach for lethal or not because you can usually dictate the cadence of the game and force your opponent to use certain resources earlier than what is optimal for them. Part of playing at high level is finding ways to manipulate your opponent into playing suboptimally which is the ethos of playing tempo.
The decision on whether or not you want to high roll for lethal is usually made much earlier in the game. Also, often times you can tell by certain behaviors and decisions made by your opponent what they do and don’t have in their hand. If you fear a certain option and you do something like buff a minion to an 8/8 and you KNOW a certain AoE would clear it and they don’t, it basically means they don’t have the card because as much as people want to say ‘life is a resource, it doesn’t matter if you lose life until you lose the game,’ the reality is that life is less of a resource and more of an exchange of how many interactions your opponent is allowed to have with you until your lose the game. If they deliberately choose to take 8-11 damage on one turn, that means they are intentionally giving up an entire turn from their clock to come up with a solution and if you know that solution is 7, 8, 9, or 10 mana, a singular turn is a HUGE time resource they’ve given up to bank on (1) a topdeck, (2) greed removal. It’s almost always best to push for damage because if they have it then they have it, you need to find lethal anyway and holding back gives them time resources in their favor (meaning the net turn loss is 0 and you’re not taking advantage of tempo). If they don’t have it then you win anyway.
You play to high roll or concede. The system is there to abuse once you are using the decks that are dictated. It’s time vs RnG thing.
Why? Actually it IS reasonable to play to high roll but only under certain conditions; that the highroll percentage multiplied by the outcome is better than a more safe play; but if the product is too low it’s usually a bad decision.
These are concepts solved by Economics in the 17th century; the only problem is that you need an estimation of those things before you decide; that’s where knowledge and experience pays off.
“While there are wrong answers, there are no wrong threats.” ~ Dave Price
It’s as true today in this, as it was decades ago in MTG. People wildly overestimate their “decision making” in CCG’s. Either they draw the nuts or they don’t. Simple as. The one time in twenty wherein you “over-extended” and lost, is not worth the counter-play we give it.
Force the answer and you’ll be in a better spot more often than not.
I don’t think it’s true at all. Your opponent can’t kill you if they’re already dead; this is particularly relevant in Hearthstone, where combo decks can’t be literally countered by tapping a pair of islands. There are wrong threats because sometimes threats are answers.
“A door isn’t a door when it’s ajar” is not a refutation of my point. When threats are used as answers, they become answers. Answers, can be wrong.
Imagine throwing out Reno on an empty board. “Most people” might consider that a misplay. But there are SOME situations where that is the winning move. There’s always a cherry that can be picked to disprove the generality via specific context. That’s why it’s a generality, and not a rule.
1 Like
No, “there are no wrong threats” is just an idiotic way of looking at things. Aggro decks can lose. That means that they play the wrong threats. Period.
It’s an error to pretend like all of the agency is on the control deck to have the right plays. I understand that Mr Price was known for piloting aggro, but his statement perpetuates the untrue stereotype of aggro decks as skill-less, zero-agency affairs that just vomit whatever they’re lucky enough to draw. It’s a bigoted statement.
1 Like
I think you entirely misunderstand this guy. Here’s his actual quote in full:
https://mtg.fandom.com/wiki/David_Price#Quotes
In context, he’s shading control deck pilots because they are the ones that look down their noses at aggro. He’s defending aggro, by calling attention to the fact that the aggro pilot gets to dictate the game on their terms.
Going first is a distinct advantage; we recognize this in Hearthstone by giving the 2nd player an extra draw and The Coin. Aggro is simply “going first” by asking the threatening question: can you answer this aggressive threat? And with what?
1 Like
Nicely put
Although, a saying already exists with that meaning xd
“exception proves the rule” or sth
Edit: yes, i know, i pulled my inner Carnivore on ths one. I promise it wont happen again soon
I don’t care if you’re offended. Unlike you I don’t post for a popularity contest.
You said you are trying to “improve the players” not win an election.
What election would that be?
I AM trying to improve players. With everything I do. Even this, for example, is such an attempt.
By making a joke about a part of your behavior which annoys people, I’m letting you know how it impacts us so you could change that about you (at least if you wish to stop being mocked xD)
I didn’t mean to offend you, but if I did, at least I hope it will be worth it
Do you really deliberate like this in game?
No wonder I’m just average. I just play on curve, lol.
“a peach is not a peach without a pit.”
Honestly, most of the time, no. Every once in a rare while I might.
But when I play poker, I deliberate like that every hand.
Agreed. But there are 52 cards, so it’s somewhat easier napkin math.
I play in Wild and it’s just impossible for me lol
This is strictly empirically based since I don’t know them personally, but I’ve interacted with Carnivore enough on here by this point that I’m genuinely convinced they have trouble picking up on social cues. It’s difficult online for normal people as-is, since we’re talking about written text from anonymous people, but Carnivore’s something else. Case in point, you reference them in an effort to make a slight joke about how I’m technically inaccurate, which could easily be viewed as friendly banter, and they immediately flag themselves for PVP.
In fact, I’m fully expecting a response from Carnivore to tell me “you’re not my friend, I don’t even know you, and I just told you guys I don’t care about your ‘popularity contests’ so stop personally attacking me.”
So let me head it off by saying it’s a figure of speech, nobody here’s actively trying to harm anyone, and nobody meant anything here personally. (although, I do think Scrotie might actually have meant that Billy Madison clip in earnest, but he also gave me iced tea the other day, so he gets a pass)
3 Likes
It’s true, they do, but unfortunately that’s not the only thing
If it was, they would be naive and trusting
Carni wears scars on his sleeves, a lot of scars
I keep hoping that time will help him realize I/we don’t have bad intentions, but I keep getting disappointed
But oh well
I don’t care about getting disappointed, I’m used to it. But it hurts me to see him like that, cuz I keep imagining things that could have lead to that
I’m disappointed. I mean, I thought that you might think that, but I was really hoping you wouldn’t