The more I FRA the more I this Reserves would be good

    • The more I FRA the more I this Reserves would be good

      The sheer cheating difficulty of encounters in the FRA makes the decks that can take on all of them a very narrow (often boring) selection. If we could take reserves in and use them after seeing the opponent there would be a lot more room for deck variety and interesting gameplay.

      it's also true that it would make many of the encounters much easier but that is a 'problem' that I feel can be addressed where specific weaknesses are excessively exploitable.
    • I disagree that the selection of decks that are viable in the FRA is narrow, but I don't disagree that expanding it further with some kind of reserves mechanic would be beneficial.

      The issue with a reserves, though, is that the only opponents that you play against even if you lose are the bosses and reserving in game 1 on each encounter seems incredibly excessive.
    • Just let people have one or two backup decks, and then give X amount of "tag ins" where they can choose one of the backups instead of their main. That way, they will have to be very selective when using a backup deck so they won't be swapping back and forth all throughout the arena, it would only be done in emergency situations like hard counters to your main deck.
    • They really need to just let us bring a team.

      There's really not even any reason to limit use of the decks we bring. It will allow them to increase the difficulty of encounters, give people more freedom in what they can play, extend the life of the arena, and make experimentation a bit easier.

      It also fits into the lore... which is a minor thing, but still worth noting.
      Gamer. Streamer. Photographer. Writer. Anime Lover. Possessor of Stuffed Animals.

      Also... I'm terrible at this game.
    • Eraia wrote:

      They really need to just let us bring a team.

      There's really not even any reason to limit use of the decks we bring. It will allow them to increase the difficulty of encounters, give people more freedom in what they can play, extend the life of the arena, and make experimentation a bit easier.

      It also fits into the lore... which is a minor thing, but still worth noting.
      I bet it is much easier said than done. They would probably need to recode the arena, which could prove problematic. I really am against more development time devoted to that aspect.
    • Pandaemonium wrote:

      Eraia wrote:

      They really need to just let us bring a team.

      There's really not even any reason to limit use of the decks we bring. It will allow them to increase the difficulty of encounters, give people more freedom in what they can play, extend the life of the arena, and make experimentation a bit easier.

      It also fits into the lore... which is a minor thing, but still worth noting.
      I bet it is much easier said than done. They would probably need to recode the arena, which could prove problematic. I really am against more development time devoted to that aspect.
      It would literally just be a drop-down list of what deck to fight the current encounter with. More time, sure, but nothing extreme. And no, I don't know their specific code, but I have a good conceptual understanding of things like this.
    • Vroengard, you accuse other people of hyperbole and then float something like, "will be the same breeze as FRA 1.0 was", seems more than a bit hypocritical. Challenges alone make that statement not true. Elites take it all the way into, "ok, that's just bullshit"-land. Don't expect other people to apply a filter if you aren't going to.

      There was only one AI deck that could pull a turn 3 win in FRA 1.0. Now there are what - 5 elites per game and more than a few bosses? I can't think of many cases where the reserves I might bring would significantly change that - except for the broken cards that people are swapping into every deck anyway (hello SoR!).

      All that aside, given the lack of silence from HEX Ent about the difficulty level of FRA 2.0 (and the justified attention to product defects), it seems like we're stuck with FRA 2.0 for a good long while. I'm not at all happy with the difficulty level because I like playing a WIDE variety of decks and FRA 2.0 doesn't allow for that.

      Take this deck. It's not awesome, but it's decently quick, it can do explosive damage, and runic chrysalis and the Hustler allow for some level of troop removal/card removal. Today this deck got crushed three times in a row in tier two. This isn't even what I would call a "silly deck". This deck has a good amount of synergy between the cards, and FRA 2.0 just doesn't even blink.

      Tuning FRA 2.0 for terror-mill level decks isn't good for my card-value. I buy the card, I want to able to play them. I don't expect to finish the arena with every deck, but also don't expect a deck like the one below to not even be able to make it into the final tier.

      Edited to try to make clearer

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Typhonstein ().

    • I can think of at least 3 basic decks that had no issue beating FRA: Mono R Orcs, Armies of Moth and Terrormill. Since these don't use any Slaughtergear or TCR, I'm pretty sure there are at least 2 more decks that did the same. And ~5 or so more. If you want, we can ask Nicosharp and CoachFliperon on the number of decks that could perfect FRA 1.0. And I never mentioned a turn 3 win, it's something that you brought up by yourself for some unknown to me reason, so I'm not accounting for it.

      Secondly, if you think I've overestimating the effect of reserves, I can just as well say that you might be the one underestimating it.

      Typhonstein wrote:

      Given the lack of silence and the justified attention to product defects HEX currently has, it seems like we're stuck with FRA 2.0 for a good long while.
      Can you rephrase that? I don't understand what you're trying to say.

      The deck you've posted, if it gets crushed in the FRA 2.0 repeatedly (1 run is not enough data) then it's obviously not a good FRA 2.0 deck. I don't know if it's "silly", I don't use that term myself, but I'm pretty sure Naiad is not a good card. Definitely doesn't look strong enough to be able to make it into the final tier 100% of the time. How exactly do you "(not) expect a deck like the one below to not even be able to make it into the final tier"? I'm no expert in card and deck powerlevels. Do you claim that you are? Is your gut feeling (judging from your chocie of word "expect") really so infallible that if something doesn't go according to it, there must be something wrong? And that's not a jab at you, it's just that you are not explaining at all why this deck is suppoosed to be strong in the arena.

      You want to be able to play cards? Have you tried them in the Campaign? I'm sure the deck will fare better there. And I'm pretty sure that you know it, now the question becomes why you ignore the fact. If, for example, I wanted to take this deck minus the artifact in Immortal, and I did bad, what would the community say when I asked for a total nerf of all future PvP cards so their respective power levels all flatline and we're able to play anything with exactly 50% win rate? How awesome would that deck variety and viability be?
    • Edited my post because it wasn't clear, sorry. I was talking about there being really only one FRA 1.0 AI deck that could beat you in three turns, Xarlox. In FRA 2.0 there are many. Saying that simply adding reserves would return FRA 2.0 to FRA 1.0 levels of difficulty was ill considered, at best. It's a bit hypocritical to expect other people to tone down their comments if you are going to as well.

      I've run the deck many times (10ish), tweaking it quiet a bit. I figured I had it at a decent spot for this set of cards and ran it three times this morning, losing in tier 2 each of those three times. For what the deck can do, I personally would expect it to get into tier 4 one of those three runs. Not win, mind you, but at least make it to the final tier. "Naiad is weak" - Naiad is a fae (synergy with poppy pixie equipment), equipment works well with runic chrysalis and fateweave (guarantee two shards played on turn three). So, yeah, not in this deck it isn't weak. Also not in an FRA with Hogarth and that Human opponent that plays foxes. Is it phenteo gift level of awesome? No, are we only playing decks filled with awesome cards? Because it feels like that where we're headed and there are honestly a ton of cards in my collection that I'd like to play in addition to the awesome cards because I get bored playing that same deck every time.

      The 'it's too hard/not fun' conversation is going clearly going nowhere. So I was trying to take a different perspective on it, which is, "what type of deck should be used as the measuring stick for a reasonable amount of power to clear FRA 2.0? A bunch of people point at terrormill or Xocoy as examples of... what? What are they examples of? Are we expecting decks with those types of power levels to be the gold standard for what a deck needs to be to not be a waste of time to play FRA 2.0? I don't think they should, I think both of those decks are brokenly overpower and are a poor way to measure what FRA 2.0 power-level should be. So I offered up a deck that I thought wasn't great, but was good enough that it should get to tier 4 once in a while

      Campaign. We've talked about this before. Campaign is the same static content again and again. It's purpose if to grind for gold after you've played through the campaigns a bunch of times, which I find boring. I found FRA 1.0 fun to play for itself, and it provided decent gold which meant that I didn't have to do campaign to grind for gold.

      PvP has nothing to do with this conversation.

      FRA is 90% of what I play and I'm frustrated with the state that it's currently in. I'm not having fun.
    • Typhonstein wrote:

      Edited my post because it wasn't clear, sorry. I was talking about there being really only one FRA 1.0 AI deck that could beat you in three turns, Xarlox. In FRA 2.0 there are many. Saying that simply adding reserves would return FRA 2.0 to FRA 1.0 levels of difficulty was ill considered, at best. It's a bit hypocritical to expect other people to tone down their comments if you are going to as well.

      I've run the deck many times (10ish), tweaking it quiet a bit. I figured I had it at a decent spot for this set of cards and ran it three times this morning, losing in tier 2 each of those three times. For what the deck can do, I personally would expect it to get into tier 4 one of those three runs. Not win, mind you, but at least make it to the final tier. "Naiad is weak" - Naiad is a fae (synergy with poppy pixie equipment), equipment works well with runic chrysalis and fateweave (guarantee two shards played on turn three). So, yeah, not in this deck it isn't weak. Also not in an FRA with Hogarth and that Human opponent that plays foxes. Is it phenteo gift level of awesome? No, are we only playing decks filled with awesome cards? Because it feels like that where we're headed and there are honestly a ton of cards in my collection that I'd like to play in addition to the awesome cards because I get bored playing that same deck every time.

      The 'it's too hard/not fun' conversation is going clearly going nowhere. So I was trying to take a different perspective on it, which is, "what type of deck should be used as the measuring stick for a reasonable amount of power to clear FRA 2.0? A bunch of people point at terrormill or Xocoy as examples of... what? What are they examples of? Are we expecting decks with those types of power levels to be the gold standard for what a deck needs to be to not be a waste of time to play FRA 2.0? I don't think they should, I think both of those decks are brokenly overpower and are a poor way to measure what FRA 2.0 power-level should be. So I offered up a deck that I thought wasn't great, but was good enough that it should get to tier 4 once in a while

      Campaign. We've talked about this before. Campaign is the same static content again and again. It's purpose if to grind for gold after you've played through the campaigns a bunch of times, which I find boring. I found FRA 1.0 fun to play for itself, and it provided decent gold which meant that I didn't have to do campaign to grind for gold.

      PvP has nothing to do with this conversation.

      FRA is 90% of what I play and I'm frustrated with the state that it's currently in. I'm not having fun.
      So the problem is not FRA when I read you but the lack of PVE content right now.
      I'm bored to to play campaign but I hope AZ3 will come soon.
      Hex say when they come with FRA 2.0. It's harder than the campaign and it meant to be that way because it's the "Final Boss" and I think it's fine like this.
      And FRA is not a place where we can come with weird theme deck and try everything. It's a place where you need strong strategie with strong card.

      And I have beaten the Arena with 13 differents deck with different shards and strategie.
      Some strategie are equivalent. Some deck are cheaper than other but all works at least one time.
    • Vroengard wrote:


      The deck you've posted, if it gets crushed in the FRA 2.0 repeatedly (1 run is not enough data) then it's obviously not a good FRA 2.0 deck. I don't know if it's "silly", I don't use that term myself, but I'm pretty sure Naiad is not a good card. Definitely doesn't look strong enough to be able to make it into the final tier 100% of the time. How exactly do you "(not) expect a deck like the one below to not even be able to make it into the final tier"? I'm no expert in card and deck powerlevels. Do you claim that you are? Is your gut feeling (judging from your chocie of word "expect") really so infallible that if something doesn't go according to it, there must be something wrong? And that's not a jab at you, it's just that you are not explaining at all why this deck is suppoosed to be strong in the arena.
      A good deck is a deck that makes sense. It should have a certain level of stability, some synergies, some good card value, a good incline, etc. I'm pretty certain that the deck shown would murder the campaign, mostly because the Party Fungi make any kind of transformative effect (Chrysalis, Poppy Pixie, Whimsy Witch) into a major powerhouse. And that makes sense, because this deck can get started pretty quickly and escalate pretty decently too.

      The problem is that a 'good FRA 2.0 deck' and a 'good deck' are drastically different things.

      You can't expect a deck with no synergies to work. Putting only one darkspire troop in your deck is a waste of synergy. Trying to make a quadrachromatic deck without Diamond or artifacts is going to be a disaster. Filk apes getting mixed in with your Righteous Paladins is a stupid idea. Those decks don't work anywhere, and they don't deserve to work.

      Then there's iffy decks with more technical limitations. Poor incline, lack of early power, lack of escalation... Those should do okay in campaign, but probably will still fall apart in FRA 1.0.

      And then there's decks like the above that are pretty decent all around, might want a little more escalation late, but... This kind of deck should do all right.

      FRA 2.0, though, isn't about making 'good decks'. It's about exploiting. Finding the one strategy that is cripplingly broken and just running that, because a 'good' deck isn't good enough for FRA 2.

      Making a bit of an analogy to the Etrian Odyssey series, a dungeon crawler RPG where you can set up your own party and heavily customise it...

      Your party will struggle if you make -stupid- decisions, such as putting your melees on the backline, having absolutely no healing, having the entire party be one class, etc. You will have to grind HOURS and push your party into extreme overleveling to make it through most boss fights.
      Your party will do fine if you make -logical- decisions, such as choosing a balanced composition of classes and arranging them properly. You may want an extra level or two if your first attempt at a boss fails.
      Your party will waltz through the entire game without any effort if you make -optimal- decisions, min-maxing to the best of your ability to exploit only the absolute strongest strategy. Bosses will probably die in about four turns. (Except the extra content at the tail end of the game)

      This is a good balance. It makes the entire thing very accessible to most players without failing to deliver a challenge. Etrian Odyssey rewards logical decisions with a fun gameplay experience.

      FRA 2.0, as far as I know, does not do this. It is heavily pushing people to the last category: Minmaxing, optimising. I've only heard two names come up in terms of consistent performance in FRA 2.0, and that's Egg Hunt and Terrormill. No other deck is apparently noteworthy in terms of its capability to tackle FRA 2.0. Other decks, though they may be logical and though they should work decently, are rarely, if ever, mentioned.

      Are there robot decks? Prophetics? Shifter decks? Transformative? The thirteen verses of Twilight? Plant garden? Briarpatch gambit? Flight Decks?

      I've not heard of any of them having any kind of success in FRA. If it's just Egg Hunt and Terrormill, FRA 2.0 is tuned completely wrong. People aren't going to play the same decks forever and ever, so having only two to choose from if you want to consistently win in FRA 2 means the gamemode has failed.
    • Absolutely agree that FRA 2.0 is poorly tuned and not rewarding enough at all. Just wanted to throw out a deck option that is not Terrormill;

      hex.tcgbrowser.com/#!/deck=251875

      I've been playing a similar version to this ever since mightsinger was printed. The big reason it has a chance in FRA 2.0 is because Howling Brave's equipment is insane. Hierophant gems are steadfast/skyguard and +1/+1 on playing a shard.

      The deck tends to auto-lose to Elite Reaper Bot and Elite Hogaarth, so it usually clears but will struggle to ever perfect. There are probably improvements that could be made to the deck. Unfortunately you can't afford to run the Spectral Acorn chest equip so I don't know of a good way to improve the nearly impossible match-ups.
    • Firellius wrote:

      FRA 2.0, though, isn't about making 'good decks'. It's about exploiting. Finding the one strategy that is cripplingly broken and just running that, because a 'good' deck isn't good enough for FRA 2.
      This is a pretty good way to put things.

      Right now the only way to reliably beat FRA 2.0 is basically to abuse the stuff that is PROBABLY so strong it would justify a nerf anyways. The stuff that is the dramatic outlier. Spirit of Retribution, Terrormill, Optimatron, Slithering Marauder, Xocoy, etc.

      For most stuff, even if you're using fairly powerful combos(ex. d/w conscript, s/w transform, b/w deathcry, etc.) you're probably going to fail miserably, even if your deck is pretty well tuned unless you just randomly throw in those OP cards alongside your normal strategies... which basically makes your deck about them and not what you actually designed it to play as.

      There's no reason to cut off so many strategies.
      Gamer. Streamer. Photographer. Writer. Anime Lover. Possessor of Stuffed Animals.

      Also... I'm terrible at this game.
    • Eraia wrote:

      Firellius wrote:

      FRA 2.0, though, isn't about making 'good decks'. It's about exploiting. Finding the one strategy that is cripplingly broken and just running that, because a 'good' deck isn't good enough for FRA 2.
      This is a pretty good way to put things.
      Right now the only way to reliably beat FRA 2.0 is basically to abuse the stuff that is PROBABLY so strong it would justify a nerf anyways. The stuff that is the dramatic outlier. Spirit of Retribution, Terrormill, Optimatron, Slithering Marauder, Xocoy, etc.

      For most stuff, even if you're using fairly powerful combos(ex. d/w conscript, s/w transform, b/w deathcry, etc.) you're probably going to fail miserably, even if your deck is pretty well tuned unless you just randomly throw in those OP cards alongside your normal strategies... which basically makes your deck about them and not what you actually designed it to play as.

      There's no reason to cut off so many strategies.
      Here's a few decks that don't play any of those cards that very consistently beat FRA 2:

      Charges: hex.tcgbrowser.com/#!/deck=251327
      Sockets: hex.tcgbrowser.com/#!/deck=212130
      Wintermoon Ramp: hex.tcgbrowser.com/#!/deck=248854
      Banks Ramp: hex.tcgbrowser.com/#!/deck=249784
      Dwarves: hex.tcgbrowser.com/#!/deck=240284
      Elves: hex.tcgbrowser.com/#!/deck=241666
      Plants: hex.tcgbrowser.com/#!/deck=247536

      With the exception of the first deck, these decks all share a common point: They cheat the costs of cards by abusing either cost reduction effects or resource generating effects, but they play none of those cards you listed as 'dramatic outliers.'

      Start with 4x Chlorophylia, 4x Glimmerfly Dance, and 4x Cerebral Jack Hat and fill the rest of the deck with either Conscript, Transform, or Deathcry cards and I bet you'd make a decent Conscript/Transform/Deathcry arena deck. I'll admit, these decks don't consistently get perfects, but they generally get 1 or 2 perfect tiers and pretty much always finish tier 4.

      What all these cards do is let you use whatever cards you want to win, they don't win the game themselves.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Steric ().

    • Steric wrote:

      Eraia wrote:

      Firellius wrote:

      FRA 2.0, though, isn't about making 'good decks'. It's about exploiting. Finding the one strategy that is cripplingly broken and just running that, because a 'good' deck isn't good enough for FRA 2.
      This is a pretty good way to put things.Right now the only way to reliably beat FRA 2.0 is basically to abuse the stuff that is PROBABLY so strong it would justify a nerf anyways. The stuff that is the dramatic outlier. Spirit of Retribution, Terrormill, Optimatron, Slithering Marauder, Xocoy, etc.

      For most stuff, even if you're using fairly powerful combos(ex. d/w conscript, s/w transform, b/w deathcry, etc.) you're probably going to fail miserably, even if your deck is pretty well tuned unless you just randomly throw in those OP cards alongside your normal strategies... which basically makes your deck about them and not what you actually designed it to play as.

      There's no reason to cut off so many strategies.
      Here's a few decks that don't play any of those cards that very consistently beat FRA 2:
      Charges: https://hex.tcgbrowser.com/#!/deck=251327
      Sockets: https://hex.tcgbrowser.com/#!/deck=212130
      Wintermoon Ramp: https://hex.tcgbrowser.com/#!/deck=248854
      Banks Ramp: https://hex.tcgbrowser.com/#!/deck=249784
      Dwarves: https://hex.tcgbrowser.com/#!/deck=240284
      Elves: https://hex.tcgbrowser.com/#!/deck=241666
      Plants: https://hex.tcgbrowser.com/#!/deck=247536

      With the exception of the first deck, these decks all share a common point: They cheat the costs of cards by abusing either cost reduction effects or resource generating effects, but they play none of those cards you listed as 'dramatic outliers.'

      Start with 4x Chlorophylia, 4x Glimmerfly Dance, and 4x Cerebral Jack Hat and fill the rest of the deck with either Conscript, Transform, or Deathcry cards and I bet you'd make a decent Conscript/Transform/Deathcry arena deck. I'll admit, these decks don't consistently get perfects, but they generally get 1 or 2 perfect tiers and pretty much always finish tier 4.

      What all these cards do is let you use whatever cards you want to win, they don't win the game themselves.
      A fair number of those decks are like 100 dollar+ decks. And you're saying they don't even get very many perfects despite that? That says a lot right there.
      Gamer. Streamer. Photographer. Writer. Anime Lover. Possessor of Stuffed Animals.

      Also... I'm terrible at this game.
    • Eraia wrote:

      Steric wrote:

      Eraia wrote:

      Firellius wrote:

      FRA 2.0, though, isn't about making 'good decks'. It's about exploiting. Finding the one strategy that is cripplingly broken and just running that, because a 'good' deck isn't good enough for FRA 2.
      This is a pretty good way to put things.Right now the only way to reliably beat FRA 2.0 is basically to abuse the stuff that is PROBABLY so strong it would justify a nerf anyways. The stuff that is the dramatic outlier. Spirit of Retribution, Terrormill, Optimatron, Slithering Marauder, Xocoy, etc.
      For most stuff, even if you're using fairly powerful combos(ex. d/w conscript, s/w transform, b/w deathcry, etc.) you're probably going to fail miserably, even if your deck is pretty well tuned unless you just randomly throw in those OP cards alongside your normal strategies... which basically makes your deck about them and not what you actually designed it to play as.

      There's no reason to cut off so many strategies.
      Here's a few decks that don't play any of those cards that very consistently beat FRA 2:Charges: https://hex.tcgbrowser.com/#!/deck=251327
      Sockets: https://hex.tcgbrowser.com/#!/deck=212130
      Wintermoon Ramp: https://hex.tcgbrowser.com/#!/deck=248854
      Banks Ramp: https://hex.tcgbrowser.com/#!/deck=249784
      Dwarves: https://hex.tcgbrowser.com/#!/deck=240284
      Elves: https://hex.tcgbrowser.com/#!/deck=241666
      Plants: https://hex.tcgbrowser.com/#!/deck=247536

      With the exception of the first deck, these decks all share a common point: They cheat the costs of cards by abusing either cost reduction effects or resource generating effects, but they play none of those cards you listed as 'dramatic outliers.'

      Start with 4x Chlorophylia, 4x Glimmerfly Dance, and 4x Cerebral Jack Hat and fill the rest of the deck with either Conscript, Transform, or Deathcry cards and I bet you'd make a decent Conscript/Transform/Deathcry arena deck. I'll admit, these decks don't consistently get perfects, but they generally get 1 or 2 perfect tiers and pretty much always finish tier 4.

      What all these cards do is let you use whatever cards you want to win, they don't win the game themselves.
      A fair number of those decks are like 100 dollar+ decks. And you're saying they don't even get very many perfects despite that? That says a lot right there.
      Not sure what cost has to do with anything. I play the cards that I have. There may be better cards that are cheaper that I'm not using, but I just enjoy using flashy expensive PvP cards like Rune Ear Hierophant and High Infinitrix, which make up half the cost of some of those decks. And even then, only 2 of the 6 decks I posted cost $100 or more.

      Very, very few decks consistently gets perfects and the difference between a perfect and non-perfect isn't very large, so I'm not sure why you're making a deal of that. Not even terrormill consistently gets perfects, though I cannot comment on the Optimatron Succumb to Madness decks. On the other hand, why should any deck be able to consistently get perfects? Seems like arena would be too easy if there was a deck that could consistently get perfects.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Steric ().

    • Steric wrote:

      Eraia wrote:

      Firellius wrote:

      FRA 2.0, though, isn't about making 'good decks'. It's about exploiting. Finding the one strategy that is cripplingly broken and just running that, because a 'good' deck isn't good enough for FRA 2.
      This is a pretty good way to put things.Right now the only way to reliably beat FRA 2.0 is basically to abuse the stuff that is PROBABLY so strong it would justify a nerf anyways. The stuff that is the dramatic outlier. Spirit of Retribution, Terrormill, Optimatron, Slithering Marauder, Xocoy, etc.

      For most stuff, even if you're using fairly powerful combos(ex. d/w conscript, s/w transform, b/w deathcry, etc.) you're probably going to fail miserably, even if your deck is pretty well tuned unless you just randomly throw in those OP cards alongside your normal strategies... which basically makes your deck about them and not what you actually designed it to play as.

      There's no reason to cut off so many strategies.
      Here's a few decks that don't play any of those cards that very consistently beat FRA 2:
      Charges: hex.tcgbrowser.com/#!/deck=251327
      Sockets: hex.tcgbrowser.com/#!/deck=212130
      Wintermoon Ramp: hex.tcgbrowser.com/#!/deck=248854
      Banks Ramp: hex.tcgbrowser.com/#!/deck=249784
      Dwarves: hex.tcgbrowser.com/#!/deck=240284
      Elves: hex.tcgbrowser.com/#!/deck=241666
      Plants: hex.tcgbrowser.com/#!/deck=247536

      With the exception of the first deck, these decks all share a common point: They cheat the costs of cards by abusing either cost reduction effects or resource generating effects, but they play none of those cards you listed as 'dramatic outliers.'

      Start with 4x Chlorophylia, 4x Glimmerfly Dance, and 4x Cerebral Jack Hat and fill the rest of the deck with either Conscript, Transform, or Deathcry cards and I bet you'd make a decent Conscript/Transform/Deathcry arena deck. I'll admit, these decks don't consistently get perfects, but they generally get 1 or 2 perfect tiers and pretty much always finish tier 4.

      What all these cards do is let you use whatever cards you want to win, they don't win the game themselves.
      Oh my god I like your charge deck !
      I try some version of this for about 2 weeks without to be able to finish the arena.
      I will try your version :)
    • Steric wrote:

      Eraia wrote:

      Firellius wrote:

      FRA 2.0, though, isn't about making 'good decks'. It's about exploiting. Finding the one strategy that is cripplingly broken and just running that, because a 'good' deck isn't good enough for FRA 2.
      This is a pretty good way to put things.Right now the only way to reliably beat FRA 2.0 is basically to abuse the stuff that is PROBABLY so strong it would justify a nerf anyways. The stuff that is the dramatic outlier. Spirit of Retribution, Terrormill, Optimatron, Slithering Marauder, Xocoy, etc.

      For most stuff, even if you're using fairly powerful combos(ex. d/w conscript, s/w transform, b/w deathcry, etc.) you're probably going to fail miserably, even if your deck is pretty well tuned unless you just randomly throw in those OP cards alongside your normal strategies... which basically makes your deck about them and not what you actually designed it to play as.

      There's no reason to cut off so many strategies.
      Here's a few decks that don't play any of those cards that very consistently beat FRA 2:
      Charges: hex.tcgbrowser.com/#!/deck=251327
      Sockets: hex.tcgbrowser.com/#!/deck=212130
      Wintermoon Ramp: hex.tcgbrowser.com/#!/deck=248854
      Banks Ramp: hex.tcgbrowser.com/#!/deck=249784
      Dwarves: hex.tcgbrowser.com/#!/deck=240284
      Elves: hex.tcgbrowser.com/#!/deck=241666
      Plants: hex.tcgbrowser.com/#!/deck=247536

      With the exception of the first deck, these decks all share a common point: They cheat the costs of cards by abusing either cost reduction effects or resource generating effects, but they play none of those cards you listed as 'dramatic outliers.'

      Start with 4x Chlorophylia, 4x Glimmerfly Dance, and 4x Cerebral Jack Hat and fill the rest of the deck with either Conscript, Transform, or Deathcry cards and I bet you'd make a decent Conscript/Transform/Deathcry arena deck. I'll admit, these decks don't consistently get perfects, but they generally get 1 or 2 perfect tiers and pretty much always finish tier 4.

      What all these cards do is let you use whatever cards you want to win, they don't win the game themselves.
      Which 2 would you say are the best my friend really needs some variation even if its slightly worse as long as its not terrible.