Because it's boring. In the last 15 games i've played 9 were dagon consume. It needs to end, i don't care if it hurt my winrate, i'm tired of seeing the same sht all the time. I'd rather see more king bran (which i have a negative winrate instead) than seeing more dagon.Ruthless95;n8060450 said:
I have at least 75% winrate against consume thanks to this dude alone. Oh and my favourite rot tosser + Aeromancy combo after he's buffed up melee row.
Also neutral Mardroeme banishes first 3 str nekker he plays without spawning new one. Consume is fine as long as you know how to counter it
Again, the issue is not counter it. The issue is that is overpresent at high ladder (mmr 4k for me). I don't know how it goes lower in the ranks, but at rank 15 it's a fuc***g plague.Sargarth;n8060720 said:
I have at least 75% winrate against consume thanks to this dude alone. Oh and my favourite rot tosser + Aeromancy combo after he's buffed up melee row.
Also neutral Mardroeme banishes first 3 str nekker he plays without spawning new one. Consume is fine as long as you know how to counter it
DMaster2;n8060510 said:
Ah, King Bran. I am alternating between a Discard deck and a Consume deck. I have to mention an important difference between the two. Discard decks are more susceptible to bad draws. I've had quite a few matches when I drew the wrong cards and was crippled because of it. With my Consume deck, I don't have that issue. I rarely draw a bad hand. The only thing that happens every now and then is a double Crone. I like my Consume deck because of the consistency, more so than its inherent power.
Esclive;n8060590 said:
Of all the suggested nerfs, this one actually seems to be a decent one. Except that Monsters kinda need more breedable units, not less.
DMaster2;n8060750 said:
Yeah, i'm rank 14 myself (3.6k mmr) and i see this deck a lot and that's why i changed it a little to include Sweers. After seeing SK discard too much i adapted my deck to counter that, after that "plague" of consume monsters i adapted the deck for it. When more people adapt their decks to counter consume the meta will change again and new ways to counter this will be created. It keeps the game dynamic and interesting.
I believe that on another thread someone stated that if you wanna win at high rank ''you don't go much for 'fair' cards''
hmmmm... if only I could remember who said that...
hmmmm... if only I could remember who said that...
I have no problem with strong decks. I'm not in the "kill morkvag and discard bran" boat for example. But things need to be reasonable. I didn't have anything against dagon consume, until i literally started facing only them. It's not fun and it kill my will to play the game, but more than anything else i think there is too many of them on high ladder than what it should be considered reasonable.ArianeGrosmont;n8060820 said:
The problem isn't the meta. It's your deck. Is there a lot of Monster Consume decks? Sure. But honestly, I guarantee you there is something in your deck construction that causes you to draw more opponents playing MC. There's a fault somewhere in the matchmaking formula that feeds certain decks to certain other decks.
I think if they added more breedable cards similar to Arachas with low power and no excessive passive ability it would have a dual effect to make Monster Nest more playable in this scenario where Nekkers are unbreedable, as well as letting Thunderbolt see use again, as well as Commander's Horn and ESPECIALLY Ge'els. I also think Ge'els should be able to affect either player's rows, but that's a different story.4RM3D;n8060770 said:
DMaster2;n8061050 said:
They have denied it, sure. And I will even buy that it isn't intentional. But I've just seen too much evidence with my own eyes to completely dismiss it. I mean, do you think that your run-ins with MC with this particular deck you are playing is merely coincidence? Are there any current Metas you don't see at all?
Moreover, I've played decks where I am consistently waiting 90 seconds for a match, and then switch decks and find a match in 4 seconds. If certain decks weren't being taken out of the matchmaking equation, you should be able to find consistent matches in consistent time, regardless of what you are playing.
4RM3D;n8060770 said:
I understand and I'd LOVE more breedable units and breedable decks being more viable but what's the point of the nekker being breedable?
Its breebability was legit when it basically had a WH rider/Arachas mechanic but what's the point of it with its new mechanic around consume? It's wierd in a consume deck to have breedable units and the unit is a little bit too strong right now so it seems to me like a reasonable nerf. That way Nekker would still be interesting in a consume deck but not a core unit. Because let's admit it, this shitty little gnome shouldn't be a core unit.
The problem is Nekkers. They can end up being a 50 strength Resilient Mob r3. And don't follow the rules of other cards because you kill them and another one spawns.
As a Bronze, theyre value is almost triple than what they should be.
As a Bronze, theyre value is almost triple than what they should be.
maybe they don't have to make nekkers unbreedable, but just limit their buff to only while on the battlefield, or only while in your hand