bonus electrum for longer games?

[ZephyrPhantom]

Let me get this straight johann, so with the introduction of this concept will cause people to PvP farm? O.O

[johannhowitzer]

No, people will just figure out another grinding deck type that gets the most out of the new system.  It's not possible to motivate people to grind with a variety of deck types unless all the deck types in question yield exactly the same profit.  There are too many variables in play to accomplish that kind of perfect balance in reality, let alone in the minds of the community.

I meant that the only way to prevent it is to restrict the game to PvP.  Players can't twink their playstyle against one another, since the players they face are always adapting to new tactics.

[ratcharmer]

The idea is to balance the bonus such that it helps stall decks, but doesn't make them better than the current rush decks.

The problem that I have with the current metagame is that if you want to grind even semi-effectively you have to play a rush deck, as no other decks are even remotely viable for grinding at this point.

Simply put, not everyone enjoys playing the same 6 decks for grinding. Its very limiting. If done correctly the change wouldn't harm any of the current grinding decks, just make more "next best option" decks available to those of us who don't enjoy playing USEM or DEMA.

[ZephyrPhantom]

@johann ... and eliminating PvE would drive new players away from the game, thus defeating the attempt to balance grinding.  Just leave it as is it, why ruin something that can't be improved?

@ratcharmer Dude, I have never played PvP and I still mess around with the trainer to create decks I can't even afford.  Sure I grind, but that doesn't put a bottlecap on my creativity.

[johannhowitzer]

Ah, I see.  You're not trying to make the playing field level and destabilize the status quo - you're trying to pave the way for viable alternative grinding decks for the sub-OCD player.  Decks that may be more fun to play, and won't be catastrophically less efficient at making money.

[ZephyrPhantom]

I understand now, but besides that, how will this variety of grind decks concept be executed? The method proposed above only promotes stall decks.

[RavingRabbid]

How many good grinding decks have you seen? I haven't seen many, simply because is not fast enough.

You say that :3

[ratcharmer]

I understand now, but besides that, how will this variety of grind decks concept be executed? The method proposed above only promotes stall decks.

What decks are and aren't promoted would depend largely on where the bonuses are put, how large they are etc.

For instance, if there were a small bonus at around 10 turns or so (just a little bit slower than most rush decks) it would encourage more decks that were largely rush, but perhaps have a small amount of stalling or control in the mix. Conversely, if we add in a larger bonus at 30 turns this would encourage more hardcore stall decks and deck-outers.

Ah, I see.  You're not trying to make the playing field level and destabilize the status quo - you're trying to pave the way for viable alternative grinding decks for the sub-OCD player.  Decks that may be more fun to play, and won't be catastrophically less efficient at making money.

Yes, this.

I'd like to be able to play a deck because I think it's fun without suffering for it, but decks designed specifically for fast grinding should still be the fastest grinders.

@RavingRabbid: it wasn't intended as a slam. Water has some great decks, but water rush is not as strong as some other elements rush decks.

[DrunkDestroyer]

I really like this idea.
Not only would it make the playing field slightly more even, it would drastically help newer players, who don't all have access to the forums, electrum and end up with semi-competent decks and as a result don't get that much cash from grinding.

I doubt it would make much, if any impact on the people who grind for score/money with the top ttw decks, but it would hopefully help newer players a little bit, since (no offence) they tend to use decks which lie between the generic 'rush/stall/control' categories.

[Glitch]

I like the idea in practice, but the theory behind it makes no sense.

If your deck takes longer to win, it is, in essence, worse.  Shouldn't it then yield less of a reward?

[ZephyrPhantom]

I like the idea in practice, but the theory behind it makes no sense.

If your deck takes longer to win, it is, in essence, worse.  Shouldn't it then yield less of a reward?

But what if the deck is a stall decK?

[ratcharmer]

I like the idea in practice, but the theory behind it makes no sense.

If your deck takes longer to win, it is, in essence, worse.  Shouldn't it then yield less of a reward?

Generally I'd think win/loss ratio is a better measure of how good a deck is. Ttk is only a good measure for a rush deck, for a stall or control deck it makes no sense at all to measure them by that standard.

By penalizing slower decks we're making rush decks the only real viable strategy, whereupon why do we even have stall cards? (I'm exaggerating, I know)