Almalexia Hot Fix Needed Desperately

Largomets

There are simply too many issues with the Almalexia deck right now for us to wait until a patch. A combination of bugs, exploits, and poor design has led to the game being really just un-fun in the current state.

Bugs:
- Patrons get locked out and can't be used properly when Almalexia is in play.
- Sometimes selecting a card makes you purchase a card you did not click on instead. Talking with a few people this is not new to this patch, but I've only seen it myself once and it was this patch
- The discard functionality bugs out frequently and does not allow you to discard even though all criteria to do so have been met
- The discard screen sometimes gets choked up in the order of events, and you get stuck in the "select a card to donate" screen, can't back out, can't take action, and you simply need to wait for your turn to time out and lose that turn.

Exploits/Design issues
- The "confiscate" agent cards MUST get taunt added to them and they MUST get a cap on how many cards they can hold. As it stands now, one player who gets lucky early and gets a tank card + a confiscate agent is game over. They simply gobble up any good cards the other player has and keeps them indefinitely locked out of play. The ONLY option the other player has is to simply HOPE that contract power cards pop up when it is their turn. This is terrible/sloppy game design. It basically means you must select Psijic to pair with any Almalexia game or you risk the game being terribly one sided, even worse than Druid or Crow and that's saying something.

Rouz

Are you on console or PC?

>Bugs
I've never seen this bug and I pick Almalexia every time I play.

>Exploit
That's the strategy. Is it really that much different from any of the "win conditions" that other decks bring? Pelin and having 1-3 cards that carry an entire deck by themselves? Or generating a *** ton of gold and power via a crow combo after getting a few crow cards? Or spamming orgnum patron? Or the psijic + druid king combo? Or just druid king by itself and its taunt generation? Or rahjin causing matches to last almost an hour?

I'd say the minority of the decks I've gone I've had the opportunity to build a taunt/confiscate combo early enough for it to matter. By the time I can, the opponent already has the cards they need and can easily counter it.

In fact I actually like it. It made taunt cards and agents matter more. Instead of what we see in a lot of the games where it was the same combos, same strats over and over and over again. If you're having such trouble with that strategy, go hunding. Go psijic. Go rahjiin. Go Orgnum. They all counter it.

Largomets

I play on PC and have played Almalexia almost exclusively since day 2 of launch, as well as some PTS. Glad you have anecdotally not run into these issues. Many are, which I know from talking to people both as it is happening to me and as it is happening to them. A lot of the ranked people chat with each other as we tend to get to know each other in such a small space.

You're preaching to the choir on Druid or Crow, which is why I called them out. But a person buying 2 cards early, possibly even their first 2 turns, should not have unilateral board and game control that boxes their opponent out of any hope of being competitive. That's not a fun way to win, nor is it a fun thing to be on the wrong side of. No game should have THAT much power behind luck, and it's a quick and easy balance fix. Add taunt. Boom. Done.

Other decks also need balance too. This thread is not about them. There are already entire threads about those other issues you brought up.

rbfrgsp

Almalexia is a well designed deck. I got it the same day Necrom dropped and have picked it literally every game since to get to grips with it. I do not find it to be unbalanced and I have not seen any of those bugs you named. Clearly, they have to be fixed if they are indeed present.

I touted the same thing of adding taunt to confiscate cards in an early thread. In hindsight, I no longer believe this is necessary. It felt like an exploit to sit on an opponent's entire deck while hiding behind a tank card at first. But everyone is smart to that strategy now and safeguards against it for the most part. Getting a confiscate card behind a taunt now is more a case of the stars aligning. In those cases, I think it's okay to reward your good luck / planning.

Largomets

I disagree, they need taunt. It's poor gameplay when one player can just totally stop their opponent from playing at all. There is no safeguard other than having psijic in play. Every "safeguard" still involves luck. Here's an example of what I mean:



Because the temple arbiter was obtained on turn 1 by the player going second, it is a quick advantage to purchasing. Now if that player can quickly get a taunt card, which they did, they can start making it hard. But this can be overcome and was... until the player got a second lucky draw and now it's basically game over. This is a situation where one player can, on every turn, take 4 of their opponents cards AND continue buying more cards AND remove their opponents prestige.

The opponent can do nothing but try to slowly whittle down the taunt agents, and by the time they finally do, it doesn't matter because the player with all the agents will have such a dominating advantage the other player will never be in a situation to get their cards back. Even if the player gets a "knock agents out" card from rahjin or a power card, it doesn't matter because it just gets gobbled up and removed from play. The player on the losing end of this is helpless. The game is effectively over. I have been on both ends of this many times, and it's game ruining. No game should EVER be so one sided, and ToT suffers from the balance issues that let RNG make some games so 1 sided to the point of being unfun. Games between two equally matched players should always be competitive, and luck should be a modest influence that tilts the scales, but never to a point that the game snowballs where one player stands no chance of winning and has no counters.

This is not "smart" play. This is not "a balanced deck." This is a scenario where one player DOMINATES through dumb luck, and there is no counter. It needs to be changed, and it is a simple change: add taunt. Boom, problem solved.

Personofsecrets

Although I don't really think that confine is problematic or even that strong, if there is anything out of line, even in a very small number of games, it deserves to be looked at.

The developers don't really have the kind of eye that they should have for certain types of gameplay. Maybe they are just being outside of the box thinkers, and that could be good if so, but I really think that whats going on with certain design choices is what we would expect to see from a sophomoric approach to making cards which lacks certain experience.

And that isn't me talking down on anyone. Everyone has to start somewhere and I think that the developers could have used some more experience to help guide some of their choices.

Here is a game...



Really, it's a non game that highlights a number of different issues.

Turn 1, I purchased Grand Larceny. Turn 2 I made my opponent take a Bewilderment. Turn 3, I made my opponent take a Bewilderment. Turn 4, I used Grand Larceny to purchase a Currency Exchange.

The rest of the game consisted of me giving the opponent multiple Bewilderments on most turns and eventually confining any non-bewilderment cards that they had.

I'll be clear. It was the overpowered nature of Grand Larceny along with the very abusable approach of Rajhin spam that shut my opponent out of the game from the very first turn. That said, it revealed this toxic approach to an Almalexia line that can happen.

There really should be more of a limit to how and the number of cards that can be confined. And this is especially the case because there are games without good power generation where a player can hypothetically be shut out from advancing their game plan.

Game should encourage interaction. I think that Agents are in a strange place. They are often must answer threats that become a huge game long problem the more of them that pile up. In the case of Almalexia, there is this type of toxic line of play that they allow.

I'm not exactly sure how confine could be stopped from creating the types of games where one player doesn't get to play. Although it may not be the biggest issue, again, all potential problems deserve some attention and solution.

SLEDGEHAMMER_X

Yeah, you really trolled that guy. If your opponent is like me, i rarely play PvP anymore for this very reason (spamming bewilderment) or Alemexia concerns, or i just quit and let him get his daily win. It's one thing to roll five black cards (after destroying 9 starter cards), but dang, the bewilderment spam is bewildering.

SLEDGEHAMMER_X

Largomets wrote: »

This is not "smart" play. This is not "a balanced deck." This is a scenario where one player DOMINATES through dumb luck, and there is no counter. It needs to be changed, and it is a simple change: add taunt. Boom, problem solved.

or limit number of cards. say 3. if you reach 3, on 4th and after you can still confiscate a card but must give one back.)

rbfrgsp

Largomets wrote: »

Because the temple arbiter was obtained on turn 1 by the player going second, it is a quick advantage to purchasing. Now if that player can quickly get a taunt card, which they did, they can start making it hard. But this can be overcome and was... until the player got a second lucky draw and now it's basically game over. This is a situation where one player can, on every turn, take 4 of their opponents cards AND continue buying more cards AND remove their opponents prestige.

The game you describe would fit what I'd see as strong strategic planning, plus a little luck. I think it's a deserved win in that situation.

Yes, it may be uncompetitive early, but that can be the nature of competitions sometimes. Ever seen Usain Bolt running, or a football team go 3-0 up in the first ten minutes?

I always say: the competition tactics start as soon as the first deck is chosen.

If you know you are going to play first, you can always select one or more decks with a power starter card. This severely limits the odds of player two having 6 coin to spend on their first go.

As for bewilderment spam: when anybody starts that, you should just match it back, card for card. If both players are filled with bewilderments then the impact of power cards like currency exchange are lessened because the chances you will ever get to combo them with another Hlaalu card are so much lower.

RCubed1967

I agree with Largomets. It is a poorly designed deck.

You are forced to take cards that are only meant to slow the other player. You are forced to play Alamexia a specific way.

This part of why Hearthstone started to lose perspective and why so many of us left that game.

ZOS - fix the deck. This one was garbage. Worst first player advantage ever.

birdmann1230

I actually really like this deck though I agree the unlimited caged cards is definitely a concern (I just had a friend to it to me exactly as described by the thread’s original post). I like the suggestion of having a cap and then letting the player select one to return once they hit max, so the opponent at least has a chance to keep the game moving a bit and give them a chance to keep playing. I’d still rather fight this deck than crow spammers though.

RCubed1967

I will not choose this deck against anyone. I have won with it and lost with it...I just won't choose it because it is broken and needs a fix.

The confine cards require either taunt or a limit on the number of cards each can confine (i.e., 1-3 cards total rather than 1-3 per turn). The deck is fine other than that. It has amazing synergies with other decks like Crows, but the issue with confines is ridiculous.

Comparatively, both bewilderment spams and sorcerer spams are defendable. Player have the ability to play around these, but a confine plus taunt is a near impossibility (virtually zero if no psijic). This issue negates a fluid strategy based on cards drawn.

I seriously believe that the deck should be banned from ranked play until a hotfix is implemented. If you want to play a broken deck, step up and make it your first pick so both players have some level of understanding.

In the future, I recommend that ZOS tests decks in-game (not PTR) before release. Have Bragas grant daily NPC rewards to test out new deck ideas. If the players don't see issues, then roll the ranked deck into ranked play. So much easier.