Skill

[wittyname6]

I know that the game elements itself probably couldn't do this and I'm just complaining, but it seems like there is really no skill in actually playing the game. One might argue that developing deck ideas is the part that takes skill and planning and such, differentiating skilled players from unskilled, however people no longer have to think about creating decks a few people might have come up with the fractal/devourer deck and posted it on the wiki/forums and now any player, no matter how new can use it as long as they have enough money. Every deck has a weakness that can be exploited so simply by playing a master once one might be able to design a specific counterdeck even though they are relatively new to the game. So what makes one player better than another?

[jmizzle7]

There are nuances to every card game. It's all about the timing of your play. A bad player will think that his opponent magically drew the exact card he needed at the exact moment he needed it, calling that player "lucky". In reality, that player most likely had that Steal or Antimatter for a few turns and was patient enough to use it at the moment it would benefit him the greatest. Card advantage, tempo, number of cards in each player's hand, number of cards played, number of cards left in each players deck are all contributing factors to a player's decision-making process, and the good players will make correct plays more often than poor players.

[wittyname6]

However many decks are "mindless" such as an aether mono or a devourer fractal. I also think that it is fairly easy to master the things you are pointing out, I believe any moderately skilled player could do it. If you disagree, and you might be right, I suggest doing a test. We could arrange for me, a new player to play someone who is considered a skilled player x number of times (the more the better) using exactly the same deck. If it seems like there is a significant difference in win/loss I would be willing to admit that I was incorrect. More plays = most accurate results.

[Kuross]

I agree with Jmizz. Having been a long time CCG'er of 15 years (namely *cough* MtG *cough*) there are plenty of nuances that define better players from casual or new. One aspect of this game is knowing the cards and what one can expect from them. Timing and, interestingly enough, math plays a factor in what I've experienced, but more like math from a chess point of view. Being able to plan certain attacks and manuvers, when to play a card, so on and so forth, takes a certain amount of brain power, even if it's not a lot and you'd be surprised how often peeps miss some of the obvious plays even based on that.

Sure, this game is easy. The rules are simple and there aren't a lot of cards to choose from (yet). Same statement can be applied to chess. Only 32 peices with very simple rules. Not as easy as it sounds though to play. And I am not making Elements out to be uber difficult either. I'm only saying experience and knowing the field of play are huge advantages that newer players take time to figure out. Luck is also a factor. But I'd be willing to bet that the player who knows his PvP deck and has a lot of practice will beat newer players who net-decked more often than not.

[wittyname6]

The only math in this game is what deck you have.
You really can't compare this game to chess, these two games are completely different from each other. Chess takes unimaginably more skill than elements. But there is a certain point you reach where you are familiar with most of the cards but after that, it doesn't take much skill. I don't think that I convinced you with that so like I said earlier, let's do a test. Me, a new player vs. any skilled player of a staff members choice with exactly the same deck. We can play multiple times to see if there is a significant difference in our win/loss ratio.

[Amilir]

Having an unknown deck is an advantage.  Anyone that's played FGs knows what I mean.  There are lists and lists of strategy guides for them.  When you know what your opponent has you can play optimally.  This is also the point behind precognition.  This means that those with the skill to create original decks are in a superior position, but it ALSO shows a point:  There is optimal and suboptimal play.  This comes out much more in complex decks like rainbows, but there is definitely skill involved.  I have blown tournament games from bad play, and won them from the same.

Let me give an example:  You have one explosion in hand and another two in your deck.  Your opponent is using some rainbow and has a phase shield up for another two turns.  What do you do?  There's not NEARLY enough information to answer that!  How many cards do they have left, how much damage you have out, how many they have in hand, can you recognize their deck, etc.  There are so many factors in this analysis.  Can you really say you know the best move for any combination of those factors?  Those situations separate the good players from the bad. 

[Kuross]

 I agree with amilir- there are a lot of situations one finds themselves in that requires skill and/or experience.

No, Elements does not = chess. The point I was trying to make is that in a given environment with a small amount of cards, there is an exponential amount of variations that can arise when making decks. There is more to skill than just being able to point and click. How much of this card do I put in the deck? What's the QI for what I am trying to do? what's the weakness and how can I cope? If I find myself in a certain situation on a regular basis, is there something I can do to change the deck to deal with it more often? Will that change affect the dynamic of this deck? What's the metagame I'm trying to work in?

Point is, there is more to the "skill" aspect than simply playing a card. I'd go so far to say that a majority of skill comes from deck creation. Going to a gun fight with epic knives is still bringing a knife to a gunfight. And yes, there is skill in the timing and predicting of in game play that does require skill, so I am not overlooking that either.

My recommendation is to play a lot of PvP, primarily in PvP2. You'll see all sorts of decks and play-style and after you've put in the time, I would heavily argue you'll note a difference in skills. 

[wittyname6]

Having a known deck is only a disadvantage if the other player then has the opportunity to customize their deck to the opponents weakness.

you can easily tell your damage output, opponents cards in deck, how many they have in hand, by looking. And it is fairly simple to figure out a strategy after playing a little while.

Kruoss, the variations essentially only arise from what cards you draw, you and your opponent get to choose when and how to move any piece whenever they want. In elements, you only have the 7 or so cards available to you in your hand if you have enough quanta, you can increase the probability of drawing the right card by adding more copies of it or removing other cards. But that is the deck, not the player.

By saying that the majority of skill comes from deck creation you are agreeing with me in that aspect. My original post said that skill comes basically from deck creation but even that no longer has any skill because of the wiki or forums that tell you all of the different deck ideas.

I only made this post after putting in hours of pvp time to build up enough experience to say this.


I would still like to do an experiment since arguing isn't going to change anyone's mind.

[Amilir]

There are a few problems with making a deck for testing like that.  First, you entirely remove the element of figuring out your opponent's deck.  You SAY it's easy, it isn't always.  A second is that a deck that provides many adapting situations that require high skill use will have a larger luck component.  The decks that show difference in skill the most strongly will also show luck strongly.

In your original post you asked where the skill is.  I can tell you where it isn't.  It isn't in any deck advertised to newbs.  It isn't playing with a golem rush.  It isn't just making or copying a strong deck.

It is in knowing which deck to use.  It is in knowing when to play that RoF.  It is in tricking your opponent to waste a card.  It is in knowing what to steal.  It is in knowing your opponent's mind.

Is there a high ratio of skill to luck in, say, poker?  No, but don't you DARE say there isn't skill involved.  It's even more complicated than chess.  Those odd suboptimal decisions make more difference than you might think.

[Kuross]

Is there a high ratio of skill to luck in, say, poker?  No, but don't you DARE say there isn't skill involved.  It's even more complicated than chess.  Those odd suboptimal decisions make more difference than you might think.

I was actually going to make that point and left it out!

Mmm... poker. Get a certain amount of cards, bet, show cards and highest hand wins. No skill. NOT!

[wittyname6]

You can't really psyche your opponent out in Elements...
But even a master will lose to a beginner if the beginner has the best hand all the time.

what I'm saying is that figuring out you opponents deck isn't a problem. mono, duo, and trio decks are based off of an easily recognizable strategy while rainbow decks are based largely off of luck. If you are saying the only skill comes from knowing an opponents deck, which you aren't, then doing the test would be useless. But you're not, so even if we have the same deck the master should be able to best me easily. This is of course assuming we aren't using a mono, duo or trio deck.

[jmizzle7]

You can't really psyche your opponent out in Elements...

Orly? I can think of at least a few times when I completely juked my opponent into making some serious blunders, even though he was a good player. I don't remember the deck I was playing, but I do remember that I decided not to play the tower I had just drawn in hopes that my opponent would make a bad play out of fear of the card I had in my hand. It worked.

But even a master will lose to a beginner if the beginner has the best hand all the time.

That's not a very good argument for the discussion at hand. Of course a player will win a lot if he gets lucky enough to have a perfect hand every single game. That proves nothing other than the player got lucky.