Speaking of math, i think playing with or against decks with disruption, like any Assassin, is a great learning experience when it comes to evaluating cards in hand and deck. Leading up to the living legend calling, we casted a pq+event the day after bh Stockholm, the playlist is finally available here: m.kzbin.info/aero/PLz2gY2pIvNhkFHfO3P4-v6ne6MsQglp8s I had a hard time finding casted ll games leading up to the event, looking forward to the upcoming games!

Great pod

Amazing pod with lots of insight, it's a really good thinking excise to think of value of cards in situations. Just want to add that both of you are perfect hosting combination as you compliment each other well - really noticed it this week with how well you riff off each other :)

Does a one legged duck swim in a circle?

Die Hard is a Christmas movie as it takes place during... you know... Christmas :)

The best "not just math" example was made by Michael Hamilton himself in talking about his CYB Nuu deck that he took to Worlds. He said that CYB on its face is not above rate -- and is below rate if you can't play them all -- but the life gain let the Nuu deck do things that support its game plan. Having said that, I think your discussion of math is a bit simplistic. The value you get from something like a Frostbite can vary quite a bit, but that does not mean you can't think about the amount of value it represents in your hand. The fact that you can get a lot more value out of a Frostbite by playing it well is not an argument against math. It is an argument for the way great players can squeeze more value out of cards.

The phrase "it's not just math" is a bit misguided imo. FaB is surely not just arithmetic, but anything can be expressed in math, all LLM'S like ChatGPT do is use math and statistics to predict which word comes next. FaB card/play sequence value can and should be conceptualized as math, even if the math is harder than adding 4+4

First - banner tag shows ep 189 btw

I love the interaction and conversation around hero bloat. I'm really surprised I didn't hear any comments on the "math" of the issue and what levers LSS has to control this. FAB is heavily played around math, so it surprises me that over 2 weeks of pod conversations I didn't hear (unless I just missed it) anything that addresses hero bloat in terms of release numbers vs LL points mathematically. What I mean is that if 3 seasons (PT, PT, RTN) each give 1,500 points, then there are 4.5 heroes worth of LL points introduced each year. If 3 sets each year release 3-4 new heroes each set, we gain 9-12 heroes per year. 9-4.5=4.5 so even disregarding that the 4.5k LL points are spread out and may LL 3 heroes some years and may LL 5 or 8 heroes some years, we are adding 4+ heroes to the pool every year. Regardless of what the meta or hero pool looks like now, there is an interesting mathematical issue that unless the total LL points/1000 is = to the number of heroes introduced in a year there will always be either a growing or shrinking hero pool. So I think a big question about hero bloat is actually more about how do you control/if you can control the rate at which heroes LL? How do you balance and account for the massive variables that go into predicting release and LL rates 6-18 months in the future? How heavy handed should LSS be in the regulation of the hero pool either by increasing/decreasing LL points each season, or by increasing/decreasing hero releases? I realize this may not get discussed since the pod has talked about the issue for multiple weeks, but it seems like a part of the conversation I was expecting to hear and just didn't.

Do you guys feel there should be more punishes in the design of heroes like from MST where "blues matter"? understandably their "weakness" is that they have some cards that don't block, but their consistency seems to make up for that issue.

I was thinking... Maybe armory decks are a little bit problematic as a source to inject new cards to any format? The cards in them have to be effectively unbannable. So far 2 out of the 5 armory decks required bans (Savage Sash - Berserk, Cerebellum Processor - High Octane, the latter of which completely invalidated a previously decently viable hero as a side effect, maybe even 2...). It's a really hard balancing act to keep them viable, desirable while keeping them non format breaking. Maybe a built-in sideboard would help so they are not exactly 60 cards+equipment?

Great pod!

Oh nice I made it into the command and cookout, love to see it haha

I don't think so many heroes would be an issue if LSS stopped with bans across the board affecting all heroes instead of the select few causing problems for everyone else.

Mistveil 💩

In honor of thanksgiving... Blitz is the next day left over turkey, stuffing, and cranberry sandwich you make from the Limited format. If you didn't it would just be wasted

Cookout question: what do you think Riptide needs to become an A tier or higher hero? I'd say Pankaj being a Nuu player and hating on Riptide doesn't seem to be a coincidence... But I actually think Riptide is an example of a hero that did get support from LSS and it helped him a lot, ignoring those bad blue action cards from HVY and ROS, the arrows he's got have really helped slowly raise the power level and consistency. Plus the Azaelea armoury deck added a lot of good tools for Riptide - especially Barbed Castaway builds. He's not A tier or anything like that, but has certainly been playable since Dromai left, and the support LSS has given him has made people that play the hero generally happy.

'Consistency is really good in FaB!' Warriors: Where!?

Enjoyed this one a lot! This remains one of my go-tos (listened to this one while hanging the Xmas lights!) As applicable to consistency, I think there was a slight gap in the discussion, regarding the 'amplitude' of said consistency. Warrior as a class is actually offers some of the most consistent heroes. Golden Kassai, for example, can very consistently offer a 7-8 off of two cards - or 11-12 off of three cards. She can do this nearly every single turn, reliably. An *extremely* consistent hero. Yet... she (and warrior as a class) is where it is. And thus... there's a 'hole' in the consistency argument, as it also must respect the net 'power level'. You both are 100% correct in that the ability to do what you want to do, each turn, matters - but if you can't out-math someone, it still is a problem. Thanks for what you do, and cheers.

LMAO I think @fleshandpod is the podcast with the cool interviews I'm the FAB channel that does all the shitposting 16:40

On the topic of winning tournaments, how does one find sideboard guides and other hero specific guides (started playing in August).

Unequivocally, there ARE too many heroes that are dead in the water ~right now~. I think LSS is so good at their job, and they work so far in advance, that this won’t always be the case. I’m not sure if we just have short memories, but for 6 decks to be viable - even if three are from the same set - that’s pretty good compared to the previous metas where it was 2 and then maybe a third and fourth more fringe deck.

Bloat is just the amount of heroes available. Doesn't mean your hero will LL slower. The current heroes that are here, that haven't done anything in a while, need to get a power up to rotate. MST heroes are a problem for me personally. Just now trying to come back to the game. And no idea what to play that's reasonable vs them.

From personal experience when I or a friend face the same hero twice or even three times in an armory they get a bit annoyed. Casual armory goers tend to be hero specialists until they’re more into the game so getting the same matchup 8 times in 4 weeks can be miserable too.

I was very happy to hear you revisit the topic from the previous week. If the topic is interesting and you have interesting things to say, I'm always happy to hear more. I appreciated the conversation about consistency, especially when you went a little high level and talked about what makes a deck consistent and what consistency is. It would be interesting to do a class-by-class or hero-by-hero look at the resource base issues you discussed. For instance, we all know Warrior has been bad for a long time, and there are lots of theories about why. How much of it is that Warrior is a bit in the Florian position. I needs blues to function but a lot of the blues are bad. Boltyn, on the other hand, needs zero blues, but its deck is highly dependent on a few power cards or else its turns are bad.

Ok, the comment about DtD being so poor was mine. As a Levia one trick, the overall pool of cards was deeply disappointing, even if select cards were great (until AoW ban). With regard to the combined topics of bloat and consistency; LSS seems to have a target hero pool size. My hope is that when we reach that, they begin an aggressive and concerted design regimen that focuses on diversity in play patterns within classes and card pools (brutes should have more viability than different variants of Bloodrush.deck).

I was just talking to my friend about how 80% of the cards in the expansion sets like Dusk till Dawn never saw play and that’s a pretty wasteful thing if you are opening boxes to pull the other 20%. If there’s no solution to that I don’t want to see expansion sets again anytime soon.

I think you touch on the most important thing about consistency. There is: every single turn is consistent or consistency over 5 turns Personally I think over 5 turns is more important.

Imagine LSS printing the most broken set of all time, demonstrably so, with multiple overtuned heroes and negative play experiences for your opponents and still claiming the game is in a healthy state. And then, having faith in the balance team of that company that managed to do this after 5 years and thinking that they're on the right track. I would be more comfortable at this point betting that if Enigma isn't LLed by the time the Guardian Mastery set is out that Guardian will still be unplayable. LSS needs to stop printing heroes that invalidate entire swaths of the meta. You can't have hero bloat if 80% of your heroes are unplayable though, so fivehead LSS.

One thing to consider is power/consistency and I am happy you guys are considering it. "Does your deck does it's thing, consistently? And is it powefull?" If the responsive is your deck is great, thats kinda of the reason kayo is not that great. If he is not very powerful, the consistency issues with nonblocks/nonpoppers does are not worth it.

If you are going to use the term “pro” to describes players complaining they have “too much” to prep for is lame. In no other profession is a “pro” given any other option than prepare for every possibility. It comes with the title. Calling individuals “pros” is where we go wrong in the game rn imo, there isn’t enough support for full time pros to exist therefore the preparation isn’t worth the payout

I am happy to see someone mention product fatigue/faster meta-shifts. While I still love to play the game, I am finding it increasingly difficult to keep up with the game/CC meta with so many new product releases.

I think it is altso super intresting i wonder if they have a plan for the old heros

35:42 Poor Maxx. He's my current main. He's bad. I'm still having fun though.

They should change the LL point system a bit in my opinion. Instead of only rewarding the first place LL points i think they should spread the points overthe top 8 heroes. So a lot of heroes should get some pointsbut alsoeta dominant decks would still gain the most points. We had many tournament in the bonds Zen meta, where like 5-6 Zens were top 8 but they didnt win the calling etc getting no points while being the most present deck in top 8 etc. From time to tme there are also underdog heroes who get top 8, those would also gain some LL points and make the system a bit better i think,

"Fellas, are options bad for a game? Survey of our middle IQ audience says yes!"

Super happy you guys covered this topic! I feel for players who buy into Betsy-type heroes and never see support. I would really like the game to have more depth in hero pools, not breadth.

Great pod! I definitely agree! I went so hard on Arakni bought all the cards and just got burnt by having zero support for contract style and being irrelevant for years, never again.

Great pod

No. More ways to play is good. Less heros to ll. I think we need more rangers for real. Azalea is about to ll.

I was expecting LSS to change to 1 expansion set and 3 draft sets a year, instead of doing only draft sets. The expansion slot helps, and it definitely should stay. But, say for example, it would be nice to get an expansion set at the start of the year (January) to shake things up after worlds concludes each year. Then we get draft sets in April, July, and October throughout the year.

LL format should award points to heroes that haven't LL yet. It only makes sense since the non-rotated heroes are beating the Living Legends

Punkaj is elite tier. Arsenal Pass used to be a pass but now it’s a must listen. Love Hayden and Punkaj together.

There is one easy thing LSS could do to increase the natural rotation of heroes, that I believe you did not mention in the pod. Change Skirmish seasons into CC. Not only would that increase the LL points in the system, but given the local / tier 1 nature of those events, more fringe heroes would get their well-deserved points. Also, to my knowledge, not a lot of people actually enjoy blitz. Commoner - sure, but blitz ...

And separate to my question: The risk with a 'diverse' meta being what matters is that the competitive scene is underpinned by the armory players and new players. Players invest in heroes they like based on the promise that even if they're bad, one day they'll be viable. And then they never are due to bloat and their financial investment feels wasted. This isn't something competitive players ever think about based on this podcast - you guys just move to the viable decks when you feel like it and you're comfortable spending the money to do so. In that regard it seems like what armory players care about is somewhat different to what competitive players care about.

My command and cooker question: are generics that are Best in Slot an overall negative or positive for the game?

Thanks a lot for answering my Command&Cookout question! Kinda sad that your answer is confirming that for example Betsy will never be tier1 because her main mechanic is created for limited not for CC :( Hope I will be able to catch you on some other event and get another fist bump. Love from Poland!

I think there is definitely a hero bloat for tier3/4 events. Competitively, it's harder and harder to prepare for the major events because there's just so much to consider, especially with all the matchups that you have to sort of sacrifice due to a lack of sideboard slots. It does feel like tournaments are more decided by whether your pairings work out for you, rather than by good preparation. That being said, it is a lot better to have choices rather than ending up being just being a 1-2 deck metagame, so it's a tough balancing act by LSS.

There may be bloat, i suspect they have a hero pool size theyre working towards and will then decrease the rate of new heros /increase the points awarded to rotate heros out faster

My current assumption is they plan to add more and more until there's notably more than right now. Maybe it ends up being 50, maybe 60, maybe s'thing like 80. But at that point, they'll likely, I figure, slow down with new Heroes and do the "Outsiders" thing y'all mentioned. 4-6 Heros in a set but 2-3 new ones and 2-4 old ones