Originally Posted by RavenoftheScythe

For some reason, I keep coming back to this issue in my head. Honestly, I know that packbeast is a really strong card, I wouldn't say too strong or overpowered, but I am willing to admit that as just one player, I cant see the entirety of the game as it is being played by hundreds of people all over the web.

But, I think why this sits so poorly is not that an adjustment is happening, but it is what that adjustment is. It seems like after this update, the packbeast is going to have an entirely different role in the game. It isnt even going to be the same card anymore...more like "Jake Packbeast" rather than "Armored Packbeast".

Just off the top of my head, if asked to nerf this card. I would have just maybe increased its cost. Or, if I wanted to get creative with it, I would have changed it so that it only healed when it was at full health, that way you dont even need a special card to counter it, you just need to hurt it. Once its injured its conditional damage kicks in and it becomes an overpriced tank. That way the card still gets to fill its role without resorting to any sort of adjacency rule. But you cant count on being able to hide behind them the whole game.

Just my thoughts though.

Making the heal conditional on being full health itself is an idea we did not consider and maybe it would work! But it would take a long time to analyse whether it would limit things enough in the way we want without harming the things we would like to achieve.

For example, consider this:

Your suggested change will mean AP will either heal all or none, right? The adjacent rule will ALWAYS heal at least one hero/ally if all are damaged. So dropping an Armored Packbeast down by your hero will probably give you heal for a long time to hero unless it is removed. The 1 attack means a warrior may choose to put a CB on or Priest put Zail's Hymn or Mage put Subdue on and actually all those cases would work out pretty well for the Packbeast user!

I can't type more now but these are the kinds of things we need to theorycraft in as much detail as we can before we make a decision but also be wary that taking too long will leave us with no adjustment for longer time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Originally Posted by Shadow Mann

How does the change to meetle of the warrior "encourage less stall play"?...maybe I'm reading it incorrectly, but it says its nerfed in one way and buffed in another while all see is a buff to heal on more options.

It won't trigger off attachment or immediate ability like Shield Bash. But it is now expanded to do armor and weapons.

Originally Posted by Gondorian

It won't trigger off attachment or immediate ability like Shield Bash. But it is now expanded to do armor and weapons.

Ah, I didn't read it closely enough...thanks!

Originally Posted by Gondorian

Making the heal conditional on being full health itself is an idea we did not consider and maybe it would work! But it would take a long time to analyse whether it would limit things enough in the way we want without harming the things we would like to achieve.

For example, consider this:

Your suggested change will mean AP will either heal all or none, right? The adjacent rule will ALWAYS heal at least one hero/ally if all are damaged. So dropping an Armored Packbeast down by your hero will probably give you heal for a long time to hero unless it is removed. The 1 attack means a warrior may choose to put a CB on or Priest put Zail's Hymn or Mage put Subdue on and actually all those cases would work out pretty well for the Packbeast user!

I can't type more now but these are the kinds of things we need to theorycraft in as much detail as we can before we make a decision but also be wary that taking too long will leave us with no adjustment for longer time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Oh no, I get all of that. Game balance is hard. I have been working on creating / publishing a pen and paper role playing game for 5 years now and I an still finding little things to tweak here and there.

I think it is also possible that you guys thought/wanted the card to fill one niche and were surprised when players saw it as a fit for another niche. It would be like if people playing D&D for example found a way to make a Paladin work as an awesome thief! Obviously the dev's are going to need to address this or just go with it.

So, your guy's idea of adjacency heal seems to reinforce what the original idea of what the card was meant to be used for (healing mages), but goes against what the majority of players were using it for (long game life support).

Honestly. Why not just have the PB's ability just heal the hero. If you want healing allies still be an option, just give it an activate ability that costs resources. SE, or even kills the PB.

I think, and this is just my opinion mind you. The pushback is coming from an identity thing. People have been using PB to do a specific thing for years now, but soon that wont be an option.

Rereading some of these comments on here, this does feel like it normally does in the RPG community when a new edition comes out. Honestly, this level of emotional investment in a game is a pretty good sign I think. I haven't played this game in years, and remembered it fondly enough to come back and check out the new cards. When I left Hearthstone, I never once felt invested enough to even comment about it, I just stopped playing one day.

Another idea...since you do seem to have a pretty invested player base here and you dont want to take that for granted, just ban the PB. Then when the next batch of cards comes out, you can put out a card that does what you want and doesn't have the expectations and history that PB does.

There were lots of cards on that list, none of the others are getting anywhere close to this level of support. Just goes to show that people actually care about this card. If you guys don't make a pack beast card sleeve or something out of this, I'd consider that a lost opportunity.

I may not have the best decks, but at least I remember when packbeast was cool.

To add some more insight to Packbeast change.

The original intent of Packbeast was to give heroes with access to few or no healing options, like mages, an option to heal. And equally important was for allies to heal as well, as sort of counter to AoE damage effects like Evil Ascendant.

But it's been long time since its release, and since then mages got some new tools to prevent damage being done to them in the first place like Subdue and Suspended Animation. Very few control mages actually use Packbeast. At the same time where Packbeast was most effective was in a class which already had plenty of healing options, priests. Specifically a control priest build whose win condition was to grind out opponents until they are out of allies and win by denying opponents win, so to say. Those decks are very slow and require a lot more turns to win than other control and midrange decks. At the same time priest can play more standard control that wins a lot faster. Deliberate choice to pick slower version of same archetype just to win in a slower way is harming to the game whose playerbase is majorly phone users who log in for a game or two, and not to play singe 30+min game. So, in this update and in the previous ones several changes were made to address this specific deck: Packbeast, Robes of Mending, Yahari. The other versions of control priest: so called fatty-roll priest, haste priest, even more exotic ones like twilight priest, vergon priest all have more or less control elements, so control as playstyle is still very much viable in the class.

Here is a deck example for reference:

Hero: Zhanna Mist

4x Devoted Knight
4x Armored Packbeast
4x Lily Rosecult
4x Tainted Oracle

2x Rain Delay
4x Bad Santa
2x Forgiveness
4x Healing Touch
4x Focused Prayer
1x Resurrection
4x Holy Shield
4x Zail's Hymn
4x Banish
4x Tidal Wave
1x Mass Purification

4x Bazaar
3x Glass Chalice of Knowing
4x Loom of Fate
4x Book of Curses
4x Voice of Winter
4x Robes of Mending
2x The King's Pride


4x Yahari: Valley of Doom

Deck is designed in a way to slow the game down. Grind out opponents removal and allies to the point they can drop Packbeast safely to start healing them up. Many opponents can not deal with Packbeasts since their own allies are usually frozen via VoW and priest doesn't care for Packbeasts being frozen.

The can't heal hero if damaged suggestion wouldn't work for this deck since two Packbeast could heal each other.

As for the ally builds that want to use Packbeast, the 1 attack being unconditional is definitely a buff. We used adjecent wording for elegance and having shorter text and it covers most cases alternative wordings we considered but which were longer.

I ask you please to consider this, Cerddorion:

If this were a real life card game where you sat down to play for whatever reason, I honestly think 99/100 people would just choose NOT TO PLAY you! Due to your preferences for how you wish to approach the game, you'd have the reputation as the local person to avoid!

(Similarly, they would also hope to avoid an ultra-competitive player who gets visibly and audibly frustrated to the point of others present being very uncomfortable. But we aren't talking about them today, so let's move on.)

So when propositioned for a game by you, 99/100 players would simply say "no thanks" (or worse), assuming they had not already made a swift exit from the gaming store upon your arrival. Maybe then some unsuspecting new player who did not know of your reputation would become your next torture victim instead.

Why do I believe this? Well, most people play games for a combination of: enjoyment; challenge; or excitement. They are not going to get this against you. It's nothing personal, but your decks just aren't designed to offer that to them. In fact, you seem to wish to limit all of those, and instead try to cause a perfect blend of misery, boredom, frustration and anger instead.

The only time I could see someone actually choosing to play you would be if you were paired up for some event that they wish to progress in that you had become a hurdle to cross. They would reluctantly play as a means to an end and have to put aside all those original reasons for playing (enjoyment, challenge and excitement).

~~~~

Unfortunately, with the online game, we have to force people to play together more often than would happen in person. They can't choose to avoid players who do not play in the spirit of the game we have designed.

It's for this reason that sadly we have to attempt to limit the effectiveness of decks that appeal to people like you, who everyone else would simply choose not to face in real life! Whether that be casual players, veterans or new players. Too many encounters with you and your preferred approach that you call "slow heavy control" will harm this game, since the return of enjoyment/challenge/excitement for time spent will have dropped too low to risk making that trade.

Originally Posted by Cerddorion

"Deliberate choice to pick slower version of same archetype just to win in a slower way is harming to the game whose playerbase is majorly phone users who log in for a game or two, and not to play singe 30+min game."

This shows that you don't understand why someone would choose to play a heavy control deck, like the build you listed. It's not just about "winning in a slower way". It's the challenge of setting up your board while denying your opponent as much of his own plan as possible. There's been plenty of times when i was hanging on for dear life at less than 5 HP while i was sweating to draw that last piece I needed in order to put the final nail in my opponent's coffin. It's similar to the old school mono blue control decks in MTG. More harm comes to the game from killing off these types of decks than there would be just because someone didn't feel like playing out a whole game against that type of deck.

Agreed. If someone cant beat a deck I built fast enough for their liking, that is entirely on them. They can always give up at any point if it isnt fun for them. If the dev's see this as a problem, they can always implement some sort of game timer. Am pretty sure both hearthstone and magic online have something like this.

Originally Posted by Cerddorion

"Deliberate choice to pick slower version of same archetype just to win in a slower way is harming to the game whose playerbase is majorly phone users who log in for a game or two, and not to play singe 30+min game."

This shows that you don't understand why someone would choose to play a heavy control deck, like the build you listed. It's not just about "winning in a slower way". It's the challenge of setting up your board while denying your opponent as much of his own plan as possible. There's been plenty of times when i was hanging on for dear life at less than 5 HP while i was sweating to draw that last piece I needed in order to put the final nail in my opponent's coffin. It's similar to the old school mono blue control decks in MTG. More harm comes to the game from killing off these types of decks than there would be just because someone didn't feel like playing out a whole game against that type of deck.

Quite the opposite. What you describe is definition of deliberate choice. And you completely ignore the part about time investment. To elaborate more on that and also connecting to MTG portion of your post I have following to add.

There is big difference between phycial MTG and digital online TCG. To play MTG you need to play a friend (and you both choose whatever the other one is ok to play against) or you go to tournament to full day gaming or local game shop for evening of gaming. Either way you plan out to use couple hours for MTG in a day as a hobby after finishing all your obligations for usual day. For online digital TCG a lot of people don't do that. They play it on the buss on the way to work/school, on short work/study break, in short alone period while kids/partners/friends are busy with other stuff. So less planned and far less time to invest. They jump in to play couple of diverse games and not single 30+ min game against decks designed to ignore and/or stop every part of their strategy. I hope you understand how that key difference in player profile leads to very negative experience for most players.

Also there is no killing diversity here. I stress this again: slow control is still control and there are other control options for priests.

Originally Posted by Cerddorion

Well, so much for staying on topic. But, since you insist.....*cracks his knuckles*

"If this were a real life card game where you sat down to play for whatever reason, I honestly think 99/100 people would just choose NOT TO PLAY you! Due to your preferences for how you wish to approach the game, you'd have the reputation as the local person to avoid!...So when propositioned for a game by you, 99/100 players would simply say "no thanks" (or worse), assuming they had not already made a swift exit from the gaming store upon your arrival. Maybe then some unsuspecting new player who did not know of your reputation would become your next torture victim instead."

I find it hard to believe that I, as just one player, have such a disparate impact on this game just because i choose to play a certain style. If the player base is that small, then this game has much bigger issues than me and my favorite decks. I'm rarely, if ever, in the top 100 of score or rank. Those that are, rarely play slow decks like the ones you hate so much. So you have ended up spending a large amount of type an effort in trying to "fix" something that's not a problem and to make this game speed up. You are sacrificing depth in order to appease the masses.

Also, you've begun to make some pretty stupid assumptions about me, for no other reason than i disagree with what you've been doing.

"Well, most people play games for a combination of: enjoyment; challenge; or excitement. They are not going to get this against you. It's nothing personal, but your decks just aren't designed to offer that to them. In fact, you seem to wish to limit all of those, and instead try to cause a perfect blend of misery, boredom, frustration and anger instead."

You're right about one thing: my decks aren't designed to make other people happy. They're designed to WIN, and win in a certain way. If my opponent doesn't like that, too damn bad. And if YOU don't like that either, oh well. I can still build slow, grindy decks in spite of the "fixes" you've done.

"It's for this reason that sadly we have to attempt to limit the effectiveness of decks that appeal to people like you, who everyone else would simply choose not to face in real life!"

And this little gem here is just one more example of how you despise those of us who enjoy heavy control. You make us out to be bad, worthless people. Thanks a lot. It's not gonna change the way i play one bit. It just means i get to have more fun refining as many slow decks as i can while i wait and see which other cards that you deem to be "unworthy" and "negative".

Hey I'm sorry, I think you misunderstood why I only talked about you in the context of toxic players. You are sadly not a special unique snowflake, but just a shining example of a player stereotype (that will spread like cancer if a game offers the right environment and cards to sustain it), which I thought you might understand better if I kept it all about you.

You are right that you alone are insignificant to the game. It is the sum total of all those players LIKE YOU we are concerned about. This is why I really don't mind offending you here. You clearly are at war with us, subjecting innocent players to a miserable time in search of a win of a very special kind - one where someone would prefer to just quit playing and take a loss (giving you a win) than spend any longer against you. Those rage quits really do taste so good to you, don't they?

Originally Posted by Cerddorion

You're right about one thing: my decks aren't designed to make other people happy. They're designed to WIN, and win in a certain way. If my opponent doesn't like that, too damn bad. And if YOU don't like that either, oh well. I can still build slow, grindy decks in spite of the "fixes" you've done.

"It's for this reason that sadly we have to attempt to limit the effectiveness of decks that appeal to people like you, who everyone else would simply choose not to face in real life!"

And this little gem here is just one more example of how you despise those of us who enjoy heavy control. You make us out to be bad, worthless people. Thanks a lot. It's not gonna change the way i play one bit. It just means i get to have more fun refining as many slow decks as i can while i wait and see which other cards that you deem to be "unworthy" and "negative".

I think Gondorian is right.
I have been playing D&D, tabletop and other fantasy related games for 30+ years. I still have mtg cards from the first set. What I have learned in those decades is that the most important thing is having fun. For all participants.
A game like Shadowera is designed, like all tcg, to let the player think actively about his playstyle, come up with (hopefully ) intelligent strategies and then pit those against an opponent doing likewise. If you devise a strategy that is sound, then most players will appreciate that. If you are a player who uses a strategy that completely frustrates anything you do, but also drags the agony out for too long, then your opponent won't appreciate it, he'll just get annoyed and rightfully so. Nobody likes a smartass. The fact you think the devs are despising you for your playstyle just goes to show you missed their point entirely. They want to make the game less frustrating and more fun for the majority of players, and that means making a compromise here and there which will affect niche players like yourself. They want you on board even though you don't agree. They just can't always cater to the lowest denominator.
A wise player would embrace these changes since it will benefit the game and thus enhance the experience. A vindictive player doubles down just to prove a point, getting nowhere in the end.

'You're right about one thing: my decks aren't designed to make other people happy. They're designed to WIN, and win in a certain way. If my opponent doesn't like that, too damn bad.'

I just can't imagine someone truly enjoying letting their opponents suffer just because they can. Remember, a lot of the players are just young kids making their first tentative steps in the fantasy game genre. Encountering a player like you could ruin the experience for them forever, to the detriment of all.
If everybody plays in a way that only frustrates others, in the end no one will want to play anymore. Enter the phrase; 'we won..., now what?'

Originally Posted by Gondorian

Hey I'm sorry, I think you misunderstood why I only talked about you in the context of toxic players. You are sadly not a special unique snowflake, but just a shining example of a player stereotype (that will spread like cancer if a game offers the right environment and cards to sustain it), which I thought you might understand better if I kept it all about you.

You are right that you alone are insignificant to the game. It is the sum total of all those players LIKE YOU we are concerned about. This is why I really don't mind offending you here. You clearly are at war with us, subjecting innocent players to a miserable time in search of a win of a very special kind - one where someone would prefer to just quit playing and take a loss (giving you a win) than spend any longer against you. Those rage quits really do taste so good to you, don't they?

I'll say that slow mill-style decks that try to prevent just about everything from their opponent is a lot of the reason i created my MONSTER Garth. I personally am very glad to face these decks, so long as there are some options available to deal with any tactics they do...need a larger deck to have all the options covered and some luck at times drawing those options though.

Originally Posted by Veles

Quite the opposite. What you describe is definition of deliberate choice. And you completely ignore the part about time investment. To elaborate more on that and also connecting to MTG portion of your post I have following to add.

There is big difference between phycial MTG and digital online TCG. To play MTG you need to play a friend (and you both choose whatever the other one is ok to play against) or you go to tournament to full day gaming or local game shop for evening of gaming. Either way you plan out to use couple hours for MTG in a day as a hobby after finishing all your obligations for usual day. For online digital TCG a lot of people don't do that. They play it on the buss on the way to work/school, on short work/study break, in short alone period while kids/partners/friends are busy with other stuff. So less planned and far less time to invest. They jump in to play couple of diverse games and not single 30+ min game against decks designed to ignore and/or stop every part of their strategy. I hope you understand how that key difference in player profile leads to very negative experience for most players.

Also there is no killing diversity here. I stress this again: slow control is still control and there are other control options for priests.

Maybe design two QM modes...one for "fast" play with shorter timer and more banned cards...and one with normal timer and more deck freedom. I used to hate stall/mill decks, but they help force some mindless rush decks get creative with options or they are autolose...decks that reduce the rush decks actually does more good than some people may realize.

Originally Posted by Shadow Mann

Maybe design two QM modes...one for "fast" play with shorter timer and more banned cards...and one with normal timer and more deck freedom. I used to hate stall/mill decks, but they help force some mindless rush decks get creative with options or they are autolose...decks that reduce the rush decks actually does more good than some people may realize.

As we grow the playerbase, we will definitely add more game modes, but for now we need to be careful of causing matchmaking times to go too high due to split of the potential opponents. Once we hit Steam and do localisation, this will be far less of a problem!

Originally Posted by Gondorian

As we grow the playerbase, we will definitely add more game modes, but for now we need to be careful of causing matchmaking times to go too high due to split of the potential opponents. Once we hit Steam and do localisation, this will be far less of a problem!

Makes sense...better to have everyone in one mode until there is a large enough base to not cause long wait times in order for more modes.

I was just pointing out that some toxic decks rage quit vs my MONSTER, so not everyone hates to face toxic decks (I'm fine as long as answers are available)...I do hate to face rush decks and too much burn damage, but we all have decks we don't like.

Originally Posted by Shadow Mann

Makes sense...better to have everyone in one mode until there is a large enough base to not cause long wait times in order for more modes.

I was just pointing out that some toxic decks rage quit vs my MONSTER, so not everyone hates to face toxic decks (I'm fine as long as answers are available)...I do hate to face rush decks and too much burn damage, but we all have decks we don't like.

If we're being honest, I think probably many people don't like facing you either. [emoji4]

A well constructed fat deck designed to trade blow for blow with a smaller deck until the smaller one runs out is going to lead to feelings of inevitability and hopelessness during that match - especially against you.

But you are a rare talent rather than just another person using a stall strategy that can be copied by any passive aggressive player of talent or not. So you can carry on for now, but you aren't going to make many friends! You have gathered a hell of a lot of respect though - from me included.

This is a really interesting and illuminating discussion, thanks for those who are contributing.

The design team mostly wants to make sure people have fun. Which of course makes sense! A few different valid points have been raised:
1) People, in general, may have less fun if they play against someone who drags on the game forever - also because there is an expectation that many online players will only have a couple minutes on the bus or in between chores.
2) People may dislike playing against control decks that limit their options of playing their own preferred strategies.
Though related, these are different points, and I think it's good to keep them separate.

On 1), I agree. I also very much prefer facing opponents who play fast. That does not mean I prefer games that last a low number of turns - in fact, the opposite. I just like each turn to be fast.

Also on 1): there is a fundamental choice to be made here as well. The designers could choose to move the game towards a meta where each game is (predictably) fairly short. This would help those with little chunks of time to enjoy the game. However, it would (in my opinion) almost necessarily also move the game a little bit more towards "casual" rather than "strategic". I'm sure there are people who would like or prefer that. I'm not one of them: I strong prefer strategic games over casual games.

To be a bit more clear: one way to make sure that all games are short enough, is to sculpt a meta where most games lasts at most, say, 6 to 10 turns. This means that players will have seen around 12-16 cards from their decks. Luck of the draw will play a bigger role than if you see more of your deck each game. That's a valid choice: the luck will still wash out over many games, and well-navigated and well-sculpted decks will still win more than they lose.

I personally prefer games that last more turns, where it really feels like an epic battle between two well-matched players. So I don't mind a game which lasts, say, 20 to 30 turns, as long as the game feels balanced.

Which brings us to 2). I don't really know how many of these people there are, also because complaints are often conflated with the first point. But limiting your options is not the same as "dragging the game on forever". I personally don't like playing (with or against) rush or burn decks. I also don't really like playing (with or against) decks with a resource curve that is highly tuned to the first 5 turns, runs great for those turns, but then keeps on drawing dead 2cc drops that are only in there to prevent you from losing in the first 3 turns against a rush opponent. I like playing (with and against) decks that try to win in some tactically smart way - not just by "my monster is bigger than yours" or "my deck type happens to hard-counter yours".

This doesn't mean that control decks should or will always lead to long games. Even the worst stall archetypes (Millstalker, Gwen-in-the-forest) don't necessarily lead to slow games: typically both players can play quite fast (e.g., Gwen: into the forest, opponent: play ally, done). I personally even think properly played stall is fine: as long as you don't unnecessarily draw out the turns, the game could still feel quite fast and exciting, you just happen to go through more short turns rather than a few longer turns. That said, of course I fully agree that uncounterable stall should be prevented - and I believe it has been at this point. And, considering all, even if I don't mind playing against it, I also don't mind if the designers limit pure stall, as they have. This is all fine.

Moving away from stall, a similar argument applies to control. A control player typically can play quite fast, because a lot of plays are quite reactive. E.g., you play ally? I play crippling blow: your turn again. So "many turns" does not imply "30 minute game".

Of course, I do know some players abuse the turn counter when playing stall or control, thereby not just increasing the number of turns, but also (unnecessarily) increasing the game time. That is bad, and should be avoided, and is frustrating even when each game only lasts 5 or 6 turns (because it still means you can only play one game rather than 3 in the same amount of time). I don't really know how to prevent that though. But if the design team think of something for that, I would be very supportive! (In a different thread, someone asked for faster animations, which may be part of a solution?)

So, in summary: I'm strongly in favour of making the game enjoyable, fun, and snappy, and making turns go fast if not a lot is happening. I'm also strongly in favour of a meta where games can last for many turns, and turn into epic strategic battles, which to me means that control should be allowed, and even encouraged, to facilitate that. I'm also strongly in favour of limiting "block all" control and stall, although I find myself hating Serena more than Moonstalker (stealing random cards messes more with my strategy and feels more unfair to me than a temporarily deferring an impending onslaught - also because it introduces more randomness, so it is much harder to plan for).

Anyway, please do continue (civilised) discussion - I think this is very helpful. It does feel like the design team has to make a conscious decision on whether to encourage the meta to be more casual (which I wouldn't like as much) or more strategic. To me it has felt as if we're leaning more towards casual lately, and perhaps that's deliberate. But perhaps it would be good to discuss that in the open, rather than indirectly by talking about the merits of specific archetypes.

I agree. No one deck type should ever be able to dominate across the meta. Mostly, this should be done through ensuring that there are enough counters for each deck type.

I think one of the best ways to do this is through adding to rather than subtracting from the game though. Especially when talking about changing existing cards. I have spent time and money on these cards, i was willing to make that investment because I trusted that the cards would do what they said they would. But if you start changing the cards, that feels wrong some how. Makes me feel less willing to invest in cards because I'm worried they might change in the future.

And of course the dev's, have the right to do this. But if I dont feel like putting in the effort to get the cards I want...then why would I want to play the game?

As for the speed of gameplay....I dont mind it. Of I wanted to play a quick mindless little pseudo strategy game I could, but I choose to play SE because it is a bit deeper and more strategic than most. I feel like if they try too hard to straddle the fence to appeal to people who just want to play big fast rush decks, then they run the risk of losing what make SE unique.

One again though, that's just me.p

Originally Posted by Gondorian

If we're being honest, I think probably many people don't like facing you either. [emoji4]

A well constructed fat deck designed to trade blow for blow with a smaller deck until the smaller one runs out is going to lead to feelings of inevitability and hopelessness during that match - especially against you.

But you are a rare talent rather than just another person using a stall strategy that can be copied by any passive aggressive player of talent or not. So you can carry on for now, but you aren't going to make many friends! You have gathered a hell of a lot of respect though - from me included.

I certainly don't build my deck to mill others (though that sometimes happens). To be honest, I never used decks larger than 40-41 until praxix was created. He alone forced me into my MONSTER (well, praxix and millstalker anyway). I needed a way to counter them so they weren't autoloss (rather than just say, I hate playing vs them...now they offer draw every time they see me or rage quit). I just morphed my deck to try to have an answer for everything as I hate any autoloss matchup. Most that hate to face me think I'm using a hack or something but fail to realize I've been working on this one deck construction for a LONG time now.