This game is ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ broken

[76561199259176202]

how the hell am i supposed to play ranked anymore with all these broken decks and summons ?

[Hungry Burger Gaming]

Is this just a vent post, or are you actually asking why people in a ranked mode are using strong decks?

[HeraldOfOpera]

It's a multiplayer game. By definition, anything they can do you can do too. Any claim to the contrary is skill issue.

[Rameol]

He is right. It does not make sense at all how the higher you get in ranks, the stronger the decks you face. The difficulty should be same regardless of rank, or it should get lower the higher you get.

[Silyon]

So, just a rant or actually asking "how are they doing this?" On the off-chance it's the latter, do need info on what you're playing and playing against.

[Raven]

I mean, I'm as casual as they come, but even I have moments where I pay back suffering. I probably made a lot of people reaaaaaaaaaaaally pissed last night going from bronze>diamond last night because of this:

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3264161238

(I'm taking out frustrations on people over not getting kagari)

edit: fire king stuff wasn't working, so removed it for more of the removal+ Lava Golems, because every board should be breakable.

[Dombrovschi]

Originally posted by Sluff:

how the hell am i supposed to play ranked anymore with all these broken decks and summons ?

you pretty much have to join the meta... you can mess around with rogue decks, it just takes longer to climb the ranks, which isn't fun now is it... so just be a rat

[Astrallight]

if you are playing jank decks in ranked then you pretty much up to get beaten hard by whatever deck is meta now.

[Void Dragon]

Hypothetically speaking, if everyone used the strongest meta deck, isnt it just down to luck/better draws who wins at the higher teirs at that point?

[Rameol]

Originally posted by Void Dragon YT:

Hypothetically speaking, if everyone used the strongest meta deck, isnt it just down to luck/better draws who wins at the higher teirs at that point?

No, it is more of a combination of luck (the biggest factor), experience and skills at outwitting your opponent

[HeraldOfOpera]

Originally posted by Void Dragon YT:

Hypothetically speaking, if everyone used the strongest meta deck, isnt it just down to luck/better draws who wins at the higher teirs at that point?

There is a skill difference, it's just that you need decks and hands that are remotely in the same ballpark and new players just don't have that relative to meta.

[Silyon]

Originally posted by Void Dragon YT:

Hypothetically speaking, if everyone used the strongest meta deck, isnt it just down to luck/better draws who wins at the higher teirs at that point?

The closest equivalent would be a tier zero format, the most recent of which was full-power Tearlaments. So you can look at decks and playbacks from the time to get an idea of how such formats go. Generally speaking, any format in which there's only one viable deck results in those decks main-boarding otherwise niche cards specifically able to counter that one strategy. For Tear, this was Dimension Shifter and Bystials and the main question was if you happened to open with them or not and were therefore able to negate Merrli's and Schiren's GY effects.

There's so many ways for high-level decks to get to their starters that they couldn't brick if they wanted to. Luck only factors in for mid-to-lower level rogue decks, and even then if you build the deck in question well about the only way you typically brick is by drawing into duplicate handtraps. Skill, meaning the knowledge of how your deck runs and how to sequence effect resolutions advantageously, is very much a thing competitive players need to keep up with. Especially in Tier-Zero formats when odds are almost certain you're going to play a lot of mirror-matches. The one that knows how the deck runs better is usually the one that wins.

[Papa Shekels]

Originally posted by Void Dragon YT:

Hypothetically speaking, if everyone used the strongest meta deck, isnt it just down to luck/better draws who wins at the higher teirs at that point?

Yes and no. In snake-eye format, it is (was?) because the plays were really linear most of the time and people ran 15+ hand traps. Tournament matches between equally skilled players were often just glorified exchanges of hand traps to see who could resolve their combo first. You have a very wide spectrum of possibilities and have to hit just the right part of it where your decks are able to consistently enough do what they want to in order to give both players a chance (most modern decks hit this threshold) and not have any game winning cards to draw into (this format does not meet this).

Funny enough, tearlaments were a more balanced and skill intensive format because instead of half the deck being hand traps, both players could realistically expect to get their engines running through disruption and it usually came down to who played it better. Of course there could still be sacks where one milled really poorly or didn't draw any interaction and was dweller locked before you could play, but it was nowhere near what this format is