วีดีโอ

Typing this from my other account but my advice is to focus primarily on improving the fundamentals of the game. I've hit top 1% in TFT and top 200 in Battlegrounds and in both cases every time I've improved as a player it's because I polished the core aspects of the game that matter most. In Battlegrounds, things like economy/levelling, finding direction, tempo, learning the core compositions, and playing with tech cards all come to minds as examples of core game mechanics that are worth recognizing. During your games, I'd recommend focusing on one of these things, and looking specifically for ways to streamline the process. For example, maybe you're rolling too much and wasting precious economy, or maybe you're rolling too little, and losing too much health to stabilize when you do end up finding a comp. By focusing on only one core aspect each time, you can start to improve things over time, without getting overwhelmed by all the different things to keep track of. Something as simple as "when should I level" is a good question to try to improve on, and the better you get at that, the less likely you'll be to need to get lucky, as you'll be rolling at the right times, and getting more free rolls into higher tier units. Hope this helps! Radar

@@Radarssbm thank you! I appreciate the advice

It's called "Basics of Battlegrounds" and is 2 years old, so I feel like that's to be expected?

I’ve been getting a lot more commentary gigs for big SSBM events and that’s kinda shifted my interest/focus back to playing more melee and doing melee content. However I do plan on making more BGs content in the future and streaming still!

Lmao the problem was I had a bunch of games and then a new patch came out and then I couldn’t publish them. In general balancing melee content and balancing HS content has been tricky but I do wanna find the balance still. Probably gonna stream more BGs soon!

@@Radarssbm well i look forward you BG content, so much fun. Always could use the pointers on how to play too so the instructional series is great

Ahh of course, you can still freeze normally but you get the ability to also individually freeze. Neat!

Except it’s not hidden lmao. Every minion costs 3 gold and sells for 1 unless the card says otherwise

?

I feel like I explain this reasonably well but you can always google the words if it's unclear. Pivot: basically means changing direction. So if you "Pivot" in BG, you might go from playing Beasts to switching to a murloc composition. Tech cards: Basically any card that's used largely for specific purposes, rather than general stats so that you can "tech" against their build. Zapp Slywick is the example I use in this video because his statline isn't great for a 6 star unit, but he's particularly strong at killing things like Baron Rivendare, making beast builds much weaker. Other examples include Unstable Ghoul (techs against divine shields by clearing them all with a single unit), but you can even consider cleave units like Cave Hydra and Foe Reaper as tech cards, as they deal with divine shields reasonably well too. If you have big minions, "teching in" poison units can be valuable (so toxfin+ any murloc, or the 1/1 poison, or maexnna) Hopefully that's clear

Hahaha what kind of phone do you have? That’s a shame that the game lags so much 😭😭

There are definitely some people who think it’s mostly luck, but I think it’s more common for people to misjudge how much of that luck is in their control. As in, someone might think “battlegrounds is 50% luck, 50% skill, and maybe it’s actually 85% skill, 15% luck or something. On top of this, I also think people blame luck in the ways you’re describing, when sometimes they’re missing the fact that they’ve made mistakes along the way to set up the “bad luck” they’re experiencing. For example it’s definitely possible that Mama bear getting sniped is the result of bad luck, but you can reduce the likelihood of that happening by grabbing an Argus to taunt some minions. Or you can play around with positioning. Or maybe people think “damn I keep facing the strongest guy in the lobby” and miss the fact that they could have been a lot stronger at this phase of the game if they made better decisions. At lower ranks, I pretty much was always the strongest player in the lobby lol. And if I wasn’t, I knew I wasn’t, and was opting to level or something because I knew I wouldn’t take that much damage

These are kind of hard questions to answer tbh. There isn’t really a standard exactly because of the existence of spells. This isn’t a comprehensive guide on how to play Elise, so much as it’s a demonstration of how she doesn’t have to sacrifice stats as much when leveling compared to other heroes. Because of this, you can often get away with leveling at times when you can spend 2 gold (on the hero power) without losing too much. The jump from 3>4 is generally pretty easy to do compared to other heroes, due to how good 4 drops are in comparison to 3 drops. If I had to recommend a curve... Generally you always level on turn 2 (4 gold) Leveling to 3 is usually the most situational, as it depends on how strong your board is....but it’s usually on 6 or 7 gold (spells like the 2 coins or extra 1 drop affect this decision a lot) Then you often can power level a couple turns in a row, selling a minion so you have enough gold to weave in the hero powers. At 5 you either wanna look for a win condition, or if you’re pretty strong you can probably do one more jump to 6. Jumping to 6 makes more sense when Dragons/Elementals/pirates are in the game as they have some win conditions at 6 but it’s still complicated lol

I think if you’re approaching battlegrounds as a “when should I play standard and when should I deviate” though, I would say you’re approaching it the wrong way The game is more about always trying to become as strong as you can ( through raw stats or stats from synergies) and assessing when you’re strong enough to level. As you play more you can start thinking about how your board on a specific turn compares to other games you’ve played, and in the later turns it’s about how close you are to completing a final comp (sometimes comps get way more powerful when certain units are bought, like dragons + nadina...or goldrinn + baron) Because of how minions scale in the game, at a certain point, not leveling is ALWAYS a mistake, because you can’t win the game without leveling to at least 4, because all the win conditions are on 5 or 6.

Pretty sure they’re written by me, but inspired by definitions I’ve found in the hearthstone wiki and other places. Basically they’re my personal definitions?

If you start strong and then die, then you're playing strongly for tempo, if you want higher places you should take more risks by levelling more

@@megaagentj2248 thx. I just one my first battlegrounds and I did just that I was the first person to get to tier six and my luck was on point that game also. My whole squad was gold and I had goldgrubber. Chances are that I never do that good again lol

lol that's what I thought but ever since I won my first I've won 13 more. I am now getting the hang of it a lot better and now how to do a lot of different builds, but my favorite build is merloc because you can just give them all poisonous. I find that watching pro players play battlegrounds also helps.

No, because the idea that "you shouldn't be playing tech cards" isn't a good idea, and I'm not sure where you heard that it is. You're 100% correct that you need to play cards that progress your own game plan, but where we disagree (and pro players would also disagree) is that tech cards can't be a part of that progression. Most importantly is that we've repeatedly seen variations of meta decks that INCLUDE tech cards, have higher winrates than the ones that leave them out, on ladder! For example, in early Rise of Shadows meta, when Waggle Pick rogue decks were so dominant, playing weapon removal (often Ooze) was kind of a mandatory tech option. If you were a control deck, weapon destruction DID progress your game plan, as it essentially "heals" by removing the potential for weapon damage (in this case 8 damage), AND because it reduces the possibility of comboing Waggle Pick with Leeroy (which had not been HoF'd at the time) which would be 6 extra damage. It also cleared a minion off board so it was hella useful. Even when playing a tempo/aggro deck, playing Ooze during that time slowed down your opponents tempo, while still producing Tempo on your side, which is exactly what aggro decks want! There are many other examples of tech cards being essential pieces of a deck within Hearthstone's meta (standard and wild) throughout the games history. It's often the case that tech cards are a necessary and sometimes mandatory part of deck building. As long as you're picking tech cards that are still independently decent (as in they're playable if the opponent doesn't have the stuff you're teching against) they're a worthwhile inclusion, even on ladder. Ooze fits this criteria because it's a decent body (2 mana 3/2 is "good" stats for the mana) and makes sense in a meta with a lot of weapons. What's not worth doing is playing stuff like The Black Knight, because you might encounter a taunt card, when there's rarely ever been specific taunts that make that card worth running, and the stats aren't good for the mana. I also agree that playing way too many tech cards is a mistake. You want to tech against the dominant stuff in the meta, but you don't want to compromise your own game plan either. If the tech card is useful the majority of the time, it's probably worth it, even if it's only OK vs certain decks. At the end of the day, boosting your average win % will always be a good idea, objectively.

@@RadarHearthstone The counter argument to that would be the fact that in the decks they are ran, tech cards (especially Acidic Swamp Ooze) are consistently one of if not the worst cards in the deck. More often than not, versions of decks running tech cards are worse, statistically, than ones not. It may gain you an extra few % against the specific match ups you're playing the tech card for, but reduces it against the rest of the field because for them you're playing a bad card. "At the end of the day, boosting your average win % will always be a good idea, objectively". Just speaking purely from a statistical standpoint, you should not include tech cards in your deck. And to quickly counteract one thing you've said, a 2 mana 3/2 is not "good enough". Bloodfen Raptor has never been good. You're choosing to play a card which turns into Bloodfen Raptor (worse technically as there are zero tribal synergies with an Ooze) every time it misses a weapon, either because you've had to play it for tempo, or the deck you're against runs zero weapons to begin with. A tech card, to be ran, can't just be "good enough". It has to be exceptional in the match ups it wins to make up for the ones it can cost you. And they don't more often than not.

​@@BlackOctoberFox It feels like we're really close to agreeing, but then you're acting as if the stats are on your side when they're not. They may be on your side in certain cases/certain decks, which would suggest that a specific tech card in question is not worth running, but there isn't statistical evidence to suggest "you should not include tech cards in your deck" and that claim doesn't really hold up under even basic scrutiny? If we want to examine a claim like "you should not include tech cards in your deck" we need to understand what conditions would need to be met in order for it to be worth running a tech card. This is pretty easy to do: all we need to check is whether including the card increases or decreases your AVERAGE win% on ladder. If the tech card increases your win rate and that increase is greater than if you chose to run a card that plays to your decks game plan, then statistically that card is worth running. So, hypothetically, what are some possible ways a tech card could increase your average win%, and what are the factors we need to consider? Once again, this is pretty simple: how much do you gain from running the card, and how much do you lose, and how popular are certain decks in the meta? These three factors determine whether you should tech in a card. Under this framework, we can understand that if a card boosts your winrate in a certain matchup to 100%, that's amazing, but not if it comes at the cost of reducing your winrate vs the other 9 classes by a significant enough margin to not run the card. However if it boosts your winrate to 100% in one matchup, and only drops it by 3% in every other matchup it starts to become a more interesting proposition. Most interesting of all, if the card in question boosts your winrate vs Deck A by 100%, decreases it by 3% in other matchups, but Deck A is 20% of your ladder games, then you really want to play that tech card. While a 100% winrate is obviously over the top, tech cards that target combo decks have actually had historically VERY VERY high winrates in certain decks. If you dirty rat out a Mecha'thun or Malygos or whatever early, you usually just win the game on the spot. Some tech cards are THAT powerful. Examples of tech cards with this kind of power level off the top of my head are: - Mindrender Illucia (amazing disruption card) - Skulking Geist (rip jade druid) - Golakka Crawler (not as powerful but still so popular and worth running) There's also a small argument to be made that "tech card" is a pretty general statement and some cards can be considered "tech additions" in the sense that running say, a second shield slam in warrior may be worth it in an aggro meta, but it doesn't mean shield slam is only good against aggro. Hearthstone by design, is always going to have certain decks be popular and certain decks be unpopular, even accounting for winrate. Right now, HSreplay says that Highlander Hunter is the best deck from Ranks 4-1, and yet Vicious Syndicate says that the deck accounts for only 2.86% of decks on the ladder. In contrast, Soul Demon Hunter takes up 10.30% and Evolve Shaman occupies 7.54%. Both lower winrates, yet higher play rates. Stuff like cost of the deck matters a lot with this, but also difficult of the deck is a big factor too. While I personally think there are some limitations to these kinds of data (as individual players can have much higher winrates with a specific deck due to the way they play, thus affecting the tierlist and creating the possibility that a deck is much better than general data suggests) I believe this data is still useful because in both cases, it's sampling the general public, not one individual player. SO if certain decks are always going to be more popular than others, that already makes tech cards more compelling option. However, what's even more important is when you consider the value of tech cards that target specific archetypes. For example, there are many ways to tech against aggro decks, and aggro decks aren't limited to one single class/deck. There are times where the majority of decks in the game are tempo/aggro decks, including right now! If we look at the most recent Vicious Syndicate data for today's standard meta, aggro decks make up the vast majority of the meta. 18.9% are playing demon hunter, 9.6% are playing Hunter,12.11% are playing Evolve/Totem Shaman, 8.77% are playing Pure Paladin, 3.05% are playing secret mage, 2.12% are playing Aggro Rogue, 1.88% Zoolock, etc. This means, at MINIMUM 56.43% of the meta from 4-1 is aggro decks. That's today's meta, but here have been times where we've had combo focused metas (near the late end of Shirvallah Paladin meta for example), control metas etc. The point is, when you have a metagame that leans heavily in one direction, which is common, this is where tech cards become most popular. It's also worth mentioning that the percentage of other archetypes still matters too. If the remaining 43.57% of decks are control decks, then it might not be as good as anti-aggro cards are usually not super useful vs control. As of right now though, Control Warrior makes up only 3.18% of the meta, and priest makes up 5% of the meta, so in today's example, anti-aggro cards are quite useful. I could go on and on, but the point is that there are always conditions where tech cards can make sense and there always will be. We've seen plenty of tech cards see repeated play on ladder, with superior winrates, despite what you claim. While you can find MANY MANY examples of data that suggests a tech card isn't worth running, you'll also find examples where a tech card is clearly a necessary inclusion. So, the conclusion you should draw from this info isn't "all tech cards are inherently not worth running" it's "the meta is in a state where this deck, at this time, now does not benefit from a tech card." As for my statement re: Ooze I am well aware that Ooze being a 2 mana 3/2 is not "good enough" in the sense that it's not enough to see vanilla play. Please try to respect that I might actually have enough knowledge to understand that. I'm able to see that a 2 mana 3/2 is "fair" at best. What I mean by "good enough" is that a 3/2 is still reasonable stats for the mana. It's not understated at all. A good parralel example is the difference between a card like Spellbreaker, and a card like Ironbeak Owl. In the vast majority of cases, Spellbreaker was chosen over Ironbeak Owl, and the reason is pretty simple: Spellbreaker has better vanilla stats for the mana. Does that mean a 4 mana 4/3 is a good statline? Of course not. But there's a reason why people chose to run Spellbreaker, a card that has stats equivalent to a 3 mana card, over a Ironbeak Owl, a card that has stats equivalent to a 1 mana card. Spellbreaker simply does more for the mana, roughly 2 mana more value than Ironbeak Owl. I bring this up because it's an example of why the stats of a card are so important, even if they're not necessarily "good." Are there situations where you would choose to play Ironbeak Owl in spite of this? Of course. There's Odd/Even decks that can't run Spellbreaker. There's beast focused decks that use cards like masters call, forcing you to play only beasts. The most common reason now would be that Spellbreaker was HoF'd, which says a lot about it's utility as a card btw. The fact that Blizzard felt it should be removed from standard play kinda proves that it actually had impact on the meta, and not just the tournament meta. Which kind of singlehandedly proves that tech cards actually are useful after all lol.

(btw the reason I made such a lengthy reply is that this is clearly a good topic for a future video, and planning out my arguments, even if it's just in a TH-cam comment, is useful!