Topic: Hearthstone World Championships (Read 6927 times)

popsofctown · « **on:** January 31, 2015, 03:07:08 pm »

I hope at least one Dominion person wins their region

Can anyone figure out which page should be the place to check to look for point-earning tournaments that qualify?

New format is best 3 out of 5, WINNER must change deck, both players only bring 3 pre-decklisted decks to play. I'm really interested in scrimming that format out with some of you guys.

popsofctown · « **Reply #1 on:** January 31, 2015, 03:36:22 pm »

I guess you could open with a deck with a good matchup spread but a very clearly defined weakness, because if you win with it, you don't have to expose it again. So like, Leper Gnome stacks game 1 could be good? If you manage a win with it, you don't have to worry about it getting lolol shieldmaidened. What other things are like that?

blueblimp · « **Reply #2 on:** February 01, 2015, 04:25:05 am »

This format is a little odd from a viewer perspective. We should expect to see more of each players' worst decks than their best decks since the worst decks will lose more and so be available to play more. It's the exact opposite direction of single-deck formats, which some people have been advocating.

But it should still be good if only to not see awful Zoo/Druid/etc. sweeps like in the previous format.

HiveMindEmulator · « **Reply #3 on:** February 01, 2015, 02:12:52 pm »

Maybe it's worse for viewer education on seeing the best possible decks. But it's a good format in terms of not just letting one overpowered deck win. To win a match, you have to win a game with your third best deck. You get more variety, and give a better chance for players to show off their third best deck, which is more likely to vary between players.

blueblimp · « **Reply #4 on:** February 01, 2015, 05:00:20 pm »

What the single-deck format advocates argue is that multi-deck formats promote less deck variety, because the primary incentive is to be pretty good with several decks. If a competitor spends a lot of time creating and refining an innovative deck, then he will be at a disadvantage because of not being good enough with his other decks. Instead, it's more effective to copy and tweak standard decks and practice them thoroughly.

popsofctown · « **Reply #5 on:** February 01, 2015, 05:40:44 pm »

The copy and tweaking stuff has more to do with constructed being the way that it is. MTG has pretty limited success for rogue decks anyhow.

shraeye · « **Reply #6 on:** February 02, 2015, 06:29:26 am »

hmmmm

ashersky · « **Reply #7 on:** February 02, 2015, 04:15:25 pm »

We could do Isohearth with this format.

Twistedarcher · « **Reply #8 on:** February 03, 2015, 03:43:11 pm »

I would be willing to do matches in this format, although I'm definitely several notches below competitive play.

markusin · « **Reply #9 on:** February 03, 2015, 10:16:21 pm »

I'm okay with the format. Sadly, I can't commit to IsoHearth right now. Too many tough deadlines at school these days.

Twistedarcher · « **Reply #10 on:** February 03, 2015, 10:40:45 pm »

Just played a series against Nkirbit. He lost 3 games on the same deck, which just seems awful and not fun :/

ashersky · « **Reply #11 on:** February 03, 2015, 10:51:30 pm »

Quote from: Twistedarcher on February 03, 2015, 10:40:45 pm

Just played a series against Nkirbit. He lost 3 games on the same deck, which just seems awful and not fun :/

Loser can also change decks...

HiveMindEmulator · « **Reply #12 on:** February 04, 2015, 11:56:19 am »

So yeah, I don't like this format because since winner must change decks and loser may change, it seems like there is little strategy involved in selecting your deck. You don't ever get to select a deck based on matchup. It's much more like just playing ladder. I guess this is good from the perspective that it's more like ladder, if that's something to be desired...

HiveMindEmulator · « **Reply #13 on:** February 04, 2015, 01:42:05 pm »

Strategically, I think it makes sense to have 3 decks all with the same (narrow) weakness if possible. Since that deck can only win one game, and that doesn't eliminate any of your decks, you can just let it go and focus on winning all the other matchups. For example, if you have 3 decks that always lose to Hunter and Mage, but always beat everything else, you can't lose, since at most you will have 2 losses, and your decks will all beat whatever he has left.

popsofctown · « **Reply #14 on:** February 08, 2015, 05:43:37 pm »

It's really a lateral move in terms of counterpicking strategy. Choosing which of two remaining decks to play after losing game 1 doesn't give you many degrees of freedom for counterpicking, so that was never that great anyway. Seeing a variety of winners should be nice. It will be a while before Blizz decides to come up with a format that's like, actually strategic.

popsofctown · « **Reply #15 on:** February 09, 2015, 09:46:18 pm »

Quote from: HiveMindEmulator on February 04, 2015, 01:42:05 pm

Strategically, I think it makes sense to have 3 decks all with the same (narrow) weakness if possible. Since that deck can only win one game, and that doesn't eliminate any of your decks, you can just let it go and focus on winning all the other matchups. For example, if you have 3 decks that always lose to Hunter and Mage, but always beat everything else, you can't lose, since at most you will have 2 losses, and your decks will all beat whatever he has left.

Another angle: what if you picked out a deck that is pretty popular, and designed three decks that all destroyed that deck? If the player brings that deck with them and can't get a win with it, they lose. So like, if murlocs was really popular, you could play three decks that all had hungry crab x2 and young brewmaster x2 and you would lose to everything but murlocs then beat the murlocs three times.

A victim as cut and dry as murloc isn't currently popular, but maybe you could work something out. Kodo spam for Warrior's acolytes? Three fatigue decks in anticipation of Warlock?

ycz6 · « **Reply #16 on:** February 10, 2015, 12:57:35 pm »

Does anyone have a link to the actual rules? Right now I don't see what's prohibiting

1. Win with deck A
2. Lose with deck B
3. Win with deck A
4. Lose with deck B
5. Win with deck A

Is it just that you can't choose a deck you've already won with?

HiveMindEmulator · « **Reply #17 on:** February 10, 2015, 01:06:53 pm »

Yeah, once you win with a deck you can't use it again.

HiveMindEmulator · « **Reply #18 on:** February 10, 2015, 01:09:45 pm »

Quote from: popsofctown on February 09, 2015, 09:46:18 pm

Quote from: HiveMindEmulator on February 04, 2015, 01:42:05 pm
Strategically, I think it makes sense to have 3 decks all with the same (narrow) weakness if possible. Since that deck can only win one game, and that doesn't eliminate any of your decks, you can just let it go and focus on winning all the other matchups. For example, if you have 3 decks that always lose to Hunter and Mage, but always beat everything else, you can't lose, since at most you will have 2 losses, and your decks will all beat whatever he has left.

Another angle: what if you picked out a deck that is pretty popular, and designed three decks that all destroyed that deck? If the player brings that deck with them and can't get a win with it, they lose. So like, if murlocs was really popular, you could play three decks that all had hungry crab x2 and young brewmaster x2 and you would lose to everything but murlocs then beat the murlocs three times.

A victim as cut and dry as murloc isn't currently popular, but maybe you could work something out. Kodo spam for Warrior's acolytes? Three fatigue decks in anticipation of Warlock?

The risk here is that if they don't have that deck, you might be in trouble. Potentially everyone will make their deck selection narrow. In more traditional formats, everyone might bring a druid, but here people may specifically avoid it.

popsofctown · « **Reply #19 on:** February 10, 2015, 04:00:22 pm »

It'd be high risk high reward. But if everyone is doing the "have only one weakness" thing, there's only so many ways to do that, so a certain class might be really popular.

It's hard to do blindly before the meta develops trends.

HiveMindEmulator · « **Reply #20 on:** February 11, 2015, 01:31:07 am »

Yeah it creates an interesting meta-game that we won't really see develop until the format shows up in a bunch of tournaments.

After thinking about it, I don't like it. It's more fun to have a set of decks that are good against different things.

Titandrake · « **Reply #21 on:** February 11, 2015, 04:20:53 am »

I'm still waiting for the day Blizzard decides to copy MtG and use a sideboard format. I haven't come across anything that sounds more interesting than that.

popsofctown · « **Reply #22 on:** February 13, 2015, 03:30:39 pm »

Quote from: Titandrake on February 11, 2015, 04:20:53 am

I'm still waiting for the day Blizzard decides to copy MtG and use a sideboard format. I haven't come across anything that sounds more interesting than that.

The main reason I want to see something different is because I've already played plenty of MtG so it's like, hey, I already experienced that, I hope to experience something different. I don't know if there is anything necessarily better than that. Improved card availability makes it a lot easier to have multiple decks in Hearthstone, deck counterpicking is a space that was always just impossible to even mess around with in Magic the Gathering because it costs your lifesavings just to buy one deck, and your lifesavings and someone else's too if it's not aggro.

popsofctown · « **Reply #23 on:** February 13, 2015, 03:47:58 pm »

Does anyone else know where you go to check for tournaments that give world champ qualifier points?

Dominion Strategy Forum

News:

Author Topic: Hearthstone World Championships (Read 6927 times)