Elements the Game Forum - Free Online Fantasy Card Game
Elements the Game => General Discussion => Topic started by: furballdn on July 26, 2012, 06:50:43 pm
-
How is it that nearly every single newb feels that they have a "right" to rares and shards? Rares and shards are supposed to be rare and hard to get for a reason. Yes, I know how frustrating it is to want rares, but how come today's newbs almost feel as they "deserve" rares? When I was a newb and didn't have an arsenic, I tried building an immobow using hammer. I counted each precious discord I had preciously, waiting until I had 4 to make scrambled shriekers. I didn't have a trident, so I subbed a vampire stiletto. I looked forward to the air elders each time because I wanted that OE for my FFQ deck. I wanted the rares, I desired them, but I never felt that I deserved them and that they should be given to me so easily. I was ecstatic when I finally received one, but today's newbs when they get that third lobo, instead of going "yay!" they have a more "time to go build rol/hope so I can farm FGs"
Another thing that irks me about newbies is how fast they want to move. Immediately, the first questions you hear from a lot are "okay, how do I kill half bloods? How do I kill false gods? How do I farm the arena? How do I get rol/hope and lobos? How do I get shards of readiness for instosis?" Sheesh. Take it easy. Why do you want to dash right through the game when you haven't even learned about all the unupped cards, metagame, and strategies? What's the fun in just copy/pasting a deck code they see somewhere, clicking "false god" over and over, and not learning about the many facets of the game? Trying to speedrun? There is no ending to this game. Just take it easy and relax.
Another thing about the community and decks is that each time a newb comes over, we seem to point them towards a certain direction. If they come over with their cat+bonewall deck, a few of us will advise them on how to better it, but there are others that just say "Go build mono death rush". There is not much creativity left in the game when a walkthrough or guide just says "go build this deck and click this button over and over". By forcing newbs to make toxic shriekers, shrieker rush, mono death rush, and all that, we're just limiting their creativity, and what they end up with is a skewed view of the game, seeing it as a boring clickfest and grindfest as opposed to the creativity and strategies that it offers.
-
I think one look at the Arena should be all you need to establish that it's not just newbies who think that copy and pasting a deck is the right way to play the game.
-
I think a part of this is that you have to do the grindy part of the game before you can do the fun experimenting part of the game. And yes, I know there is the trainer but it doesn't feel the same. I don't feel entitled to rares, but i'm frequently frustrated when I know I could be slaying gods and blasting through the arena if I had rares. I have a list of decks I'd love to build, but cannot due to costs.
-
a boring clickfest and grindfest
Isn't that Elements the Game?
But seriously, it's not our fault that all the most optimized decks have been done before. Every "new" and "creative" deck comes within 1-2 months after their respective patches because the unrestrained meta-game is that one-dimensional. Grinding AI3 is about speed. Grinding FGs and Arena is about win-rate. These are two easily-measurable results that can be used to place decks into a hierarchy where only the first tier is relevant. The only time a truly original deck would appear was when someone had been "clicking 'false god' over and over", had been memorizing their decks and tactics, and had brought forth a deck with a wide coverage for all the False Gods' weaknesses. However, these decks have also fallen in front of the decks with overpowered combos that work regardless to the opponent's strategy.
Why should we tell a new player to face AI3 or PvP1 with a sub-par deck?
-
Wow, I actually totally agree with furball here.
Most newbs are just permanently whining to get farms, they contribute nothing whatsoever to the game except for flooding and polluting pvp2, and more often than not, once they farmed all the rares they "deserve", they leave again...
I always saw rares as a reward you get for sticking around, not as something you are due just because you play this game.
Maybe it's a generational thing, but noone seems to want to provide any effort to do anything, so let's all just hack, give out fully upped starter decks and begin every match with 75 quanta of each element, because we deserve it.
-
Maybe it's a generational thing, but noone seems to want to provide any effort to do anything, so let's all just hack, give out fully upped starter decks and begin every match with 75 quanta of each element, because we deserve it.
I would suggest using the trainer (http://elementsthegame.com/trainer.html) instead. If you want all the cards in the game with no effort, it's there for a reason.
As for addressing the matter of helping newbs out with their decks, I guess you can request everyone to give more constructive or creative suggestions, but on the other side of the coin there are only so many cards and not all of them will the deck in question that needs improvement.
-
My take:
I think that the core issue is the rarity of rares. The problem is not that they are too rare to get and that the newbs are always complaining about them. The problem is that they are too common and widespread in this community- specifically in the meta-game.
Let's take a look at the release of the shards. I do believe that they are balanced, individually (for the most part). However, only three card series' updates (since I've started playing, v 1.13) are memorable to me- the alchemy cards, the nymphs, and the shards. The alchemy cards are in the bazaar- there is no issue. The nymphs are ultra-rare, but hardly vital. Shards, however, are vital to the plethora of new decks that have been built around them.
Before I say anything else, I'd like to reiterate that shards are individually balanced, for the most part.
From instosis to zen to firestall, shards have been powering many of our most innovative decks. If we take a look at the list of cards in say 2010, and compare them to the list of cards in 2012- what percentage of card updates were rare cards? Most of the new growth in elements has been in rare cards, and thus our new deckbuilding is limited to shards. This has led to shards being too important- they are the key to unlocking the newest, most efficient decks. They are the key to that holy grail of efficiency and to the fun new decks that our creative minds in this community churn out every few weeks.
The problem is that shards are over-represented in this game, and have a disproportionate amount of influence on the meta. New players see this meta dominated by shards, and they want them. It is not logical to let people constantly see something they covet but not have it themselves and expect them not to whine about it. Now that I think of it, we had this same problem in T50 and all the pulverizer and eternity farms.
Now, getting to my point- rares play a disproportionate role in our decks- the meta. The solution: Use some of those wonderful things called 'card ideas' from the Armory. New cards and mechanics, especially those that would take up the same niche as the current rares do. The rares can stay better- but they should not be mandatory in efficient play. Reduce the prominence of rares in the meta by introducing a rain of new cards. Shift the meta away from rares so that they are wanted, but not required, in the top decks.
-
One issue that may attribute to this is that this is a flash game. No one normally exerts too much time in a flash game. Especially from those coming from Kong. They just want to level up, win badges and move on. So when they hit the brick wall we call Elements, they want the easy way out. After all, it's not some sort of console game where you need invest a lot of time. It's a flash game.
-
+rep for furballdn for this. Totally true. Dunno what we can do about it, though. I think Aves has got it down pretty good with his reply.
-
Although I am new and I don't think I fall into the category furball is describing, I would say that Aves' reply is definitely pretty close.
Not that I feel like I'm entitled to rares like the shards or anything, but Aves is right. Nymphs aren't necessary. Alchemy cards aren't necessary. Rare weapons aren't completely necessary and aren't that difficult to find. The shards are crucial to the most powerful decks out there. So of course when new people see that so many of the good decks rely on shards, they're going to want them. I've been grinding Bronze arena pretty frequently - although with an unupped deck - over the last week or so and I have five shards to show for it. It's definitely not easy to get them and I can understand why people would be upset that it's tough to come across some of the most important cards in the game.
-
The bigger problem is that being left in a constant state of grinding is boring. The inexperience of newbs in deckbuilding keeps them stuck in the beginner stage and prevents them from going into the intermediate stage. The advanced intermediate is stuck grinding with THE best deck, now, it's PD SoSac for FG's. Making rares more common would only grease the intermediate stage; making them less common would constrict that stage.
-
The bigger problem is that being left in a constant state of grinding is boring. The inexperience of newbs in deckbuilding keeps them stuck in the beginner stage and prevents them from going into the intermediate stage. The advanced intermediate is stuck grinding with THE best deck, now, it's PD SoSac for FG's. Making rares more common would only grease the intermediate stage; making them less common would constrict that stage.
You know what would really grease that stage? Hacking. :)
-
The bigger problem is that being left in a constant state of grinding is boring. The inexperience of newbs in deckbuilding keeps them stuck in the beginner stage and prevents them from going into the intermediate stage. The advanced intermediate is stuck grinding with THE best deck, now, it's PD SoSac for FG's. Making rares more common would only grease the intermediate stage; making them less common would constrict that stage.
You know what would really grease that stage? Hacking. :)
You know what would really be constructive? Not that comment.
Try instead to form an argument. Preferably without the strawman fallacy.
-
The bigger problem is that being left in a constant state of grinding is boring. The inexperience of newbs in deckbuilding keeps them stuck in the beginner stage and prevents them from going into the intermediate stage. The advanced intermediate is stuck grinding with THE best deck, now, it's PD SoSac for FG's. Making rares more common would only grease the intermediate stage; making them less common would constrict that stage.
Although making rares common does make it easier for nublets during the "intermediate stage", players should not take this problem (if it is a problem) into their own hands by exploiting a method that completely ignores the competitive nature of random PvP.
The developer, by making the "intermediate stage" difficult, has set a difficulty level for gathering rares. Being able to undermine the developer's intentions is no reason to do so.
-
Rather than changing how common or powerful rares are, which would throw the intermediate stage off, we should do things such as giving newbs deckbuilding tips and the link to the forums and balancing the effectiveness of decks in PvE combat by introducing new FG decks, making AI changes, etc. That would do more to make the game better than changing the rarity and power of rares.
-
This thread is actually a few rants clumped into one, but they mostly follow on the mindset of newbies, so I'll try to go more in depth.
Impatient newbies. This is a big one, with newbies saying right off the bat, "How do I kill FGs?". There's quite a huge difficulty gap from AI3 to above, and FGs have their own little niche high above AI3 in difficulty. Now I know that a majority of players come from kong for the badges (I was one), but telling them to use MA, LS, or LA to kill FGs does not help. They'll just take you at your word, get enough money for a cheap deck, keep clicking FGs until they win, get the badge, then leave. We want them to stay, so giving them the straightforward way for the badge does not help at all. It'd be like playing a puzzle game while having a walkthrough in another window. They're not playing for the sake of playing, but for the sake of badges and completeness. How do we stop this? A few are determined to be badge hunters, but most can be convinced and drawn into the game of EtG if they were to fully immerse themselves in the elements, cards, and strategies instead of speeding their way to get a badge and then drop out. Encourage newer players to slow down, develop their strategies, and play with the metagame instead of just speedrunning a badge. You give a man a fish and he eats for a day, but you teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime. Teach newer players how to play, not what to play.
-
Let's see if I can say something that isn't stupid...
What if we fragmented this so-called intermediate level? Consider the average player, or at least the ones that I do know. They will quit before they seek help from a game-based community. Maybe peek into a chatroom, but that's as far as they'll go. One way to fix that is to, as previously suggested, add more quests. Make upgrading cards slightly easier. This would keep potential mainstays in the system long enough that they will stick.
-
Let's see if I can say something that isn't stupid...
What if we fragmented this so-called intermediate level?
The intermediate level is the jump from the weak fair opponent (AI3) to the cheater (AI5). AI4 is in the gap in some perspective but not in others. The lesson learned in the intermediate level is how to beat a cheater. How can we make that easier to learn?
-
In this game, we can beat the cheater by:
1. Using powerful cards (upgrades)
2. Using powerful playstyle (strategy against AI)
If upgrades are made initially easier, then it becomes much easier to beat the cheater. With just 6 upgrades, one can make decks so powerful to farm FG. This is the number of upgrades absolutely needed to bypass that bridge.
-
In this game, we can beat the cheater by:
1. Using powerful cards (upgrades)
2. Using powerful playstyle (strategy against AI)
If upgrades are made initially easier, then it becomes much easier to beat the cheater. With just 6 upgrades, one can make decks so powerful to farm FG. This is the number of upgrades absolutely needed to bypass that bridge.
The cheater has upgrades as well. They are the answer to upped pvp. Not the answer of how to beat the cheater.
How do we teach powerful playstyles better?
-
Well, concerning this topic, the right is to be earned. Want rares? farm!!! We cannot deny there're lots of people who wants an easy way around. Should have told those people no toil, you do not reap.
I can still remember how i farm for the rares for at least 1 month non-stop, yet if there're people who get that by cheating or whatever..... that would not be fair to all who did the same.
But i guess if they use the shortcuts, we should have an edge over them, since they will definitely be lacking in strategies. Noob as i'm in this game, i can still proudly say that i'm gonna be superior against those kind of players.
-
If upgrades are made initially easier, then it becomes much easier to beat the cheater. With just 6 upgrades, one can make decks so powerful to farm FG. This is the number of upgrades absolutely needed to bypass that bridge.
The cheater has upgrades as well. They are the answer to upped pvp. Not the answer of how to beat the cheater.
How do we teach powerful playstyles better?
By offering PvP tutorials. By volunteering to be in chat, explaining (ever so patiently!) synergy, quantum balance, and the like to newbs. By engaging new players in creative deckbuilding, while offering suggestions for improvement rather than judgements of existant deckbuilding skills/knowledge.
By being the change, essentially. 5 minutes in PvP with a veteran opponent, who is willing to explain how hir deck works, turn by turn, is worth far more than many hours of grinding the same old AI3, when it comes to learning.
I've proposed it elsewhere, and will do it again, here: we need a group of PvP instructors, and a PvP system without the time limits (or with longer ones, whatever), to allow for questions and answers to be exchanged every turn. We need a dedicated group of veterans (Engineers, looking at you here) who can lurk chat, and discuss possibilities with newbs, while they build their decks.
Finally, we need to all remember just how frustrating it was to finally have the basics down, only to be slaughtered by FGs and Arena decks. With that in mind, it becomes easier to encourage perseverance in newbs; instead of "we all had to do it, suck it up," we should be saying "here are the opportunities to learn strategies and counter-strategies that will help you in future deckbuilding."
Just a few :electrum for the pile.
edit: formatting error
-
This may be completely off topic, though I'm not entirely sure what is on-topic, but I've heard some newbs complain/state/suggest that the beginning of the game is fun, the endgame is fun, but there is a hefty distance between them, one that is not so fun. I really do believe that another level between AI3 and FG would be beneficial. T50 used to be this, and now arena is here, though I personally think we need something more. Not random, like AI4, but not eternal, like AIs 2,3 and 5. Something like a set of decks that changes every week or something.
I do not know if what I am saying makes sense, or is even able to be implemented. Either way, this is my 2 :electrum.
-
So, that Mentor program...
-
The problem of impatient players (newbs or otherwise) has a simple answer: none. In the age of entitlement, you cannot provide an explanation of why they cannot have everything they want right now that will satisfy them. If they don't enjoy playing the game, they will burn out or try other things. If they find enjoyment in the game, and this is likely something a little different for each person, then that enjoyment will answer why they keep playing despite not having everything right now.
When I look back at all the things that have changed since I started playing that make it easier to play/advance more quickly, it's pretty incredible. For example when I started, if you wanted a rare card like Miracle, you had to to beat some decks with Miracle in it and just hope and pray they would turn up on spins. Eventually the T50 system softened that issue significantly but the remainder of the developer-led changes have really brought the difficulty of advancing down a few pegs.
1. The Oracle
a. Free card every time from Oracle
b. Free coin every time from Oracle
c. Free preview of next FG from Oracle
2. The Arena
a. Free coin just for taking the time to construct a deck and letting someone else lose against it. Even better, you don't even need to be on at the time
b. Bonus Arena spins for rares
c. Crazy cash rewards against decks of all stripes
3. The Trainer: the ultimate "try it before you buy it" deal.
4. Changing mark for free. Yes, there was a time it cost 100 :electrum just to change marks. It really put a damper on a new player's budget just to try new decks
So maybe it makes me old and crusty to have seen all these changes, but I still like the game and I still play it. Gripers gonna gripe, newbies gonna newb. Keep your chin up and have some fun. It's a game after all. ;)
-
I disagree. You can convert many newbs by letting them experience and enjoy the game. If all you do is tell them how to get badges or finish the quests, they'll be gone almost immediately. I think a few things would help attract more players though.
New cards for new strategies
A less steep learning curve
With the current cards we have now, and the slow rate that they come out, we can only work on the learning curve and teaching newer players to enjoy the game. I will repeat what I said earlier, when newbs ask for help, teach them how to play, now what to play. Don't just hand them that classic mono rush on a platter for them. Work together with them to develop their strategies so that they actually feel the fun of creation and experimentation.
-
With the current cards we have now, and the slow rate that they come out, we can only work on the learning curve and teaching newer players to enjoy the game. I will repeat what I said earlier, when newbs ask for help, teach them how to play, not what to play. Don't just hand them that classic mono rush on a platter for them. Work together with them to develop their strategies so that they actually feel the fun of creation and experimentation.
I agree with this. Problem is how to actually do this effectively and put them in contact? New players are probably more likely to hit the Kong chats to come here. And what if they do, what is an effective way of teaching new players? The dead Mentor system?
-
With the current cards we have now, and the slow rate that they come out, we can only work on the learning curve and teaching newer players to enjoy the game. I will repeat what I said earlier, when newbs ask for help, teach them how to play, not what to play. Don't just hand them that classic mono rush on a platter for them. Work together with them to develop their strategies so that they actually feel the fun of creation and experimentation.
I agree with this. Problem is how to actually do this effectively and put them in contact? New players are probably more likely to hit the Kong chats to come here. And what if they do, what is an effective way of teaching new players? The dead Mentor system?
A new PvP, without the time/turn restriction. Possibly with openly visible hands on both sides, so that everyone can see what's being discussed. Use it on a one-by-one basis, with a vet walking through playstyles with a newb; every now and then (daily? weekly? depends on interest) have a detailed instructor's match, with newbs in spectator mode, with each instructor giving detailed explanations of each turn they play.
AFAIK, this would be a reasonably easy solution to implement, and would allow for some proper instruction, with visual aids.
-
But that'd take time. What about video tutorials? Anyone willing to teach via hypercam?
-
Personally, I feel that what you guys are proposing is overly complicated. All you really need to "tutor" a newbie is to sit down with him for a few minutes, examine his deck, point out its flaws and strengths, suggest how to mod it a bit, and go from there. I'm not a fan of video tutorials and hypercam unless they're personal and aimed at one person. Just a few minutes in a chat with a 1:1 would be fine. Even if it's a different mentor each time. If you're an experienced vet and a newb pops into chat, just take a few minutes, answer his questions, and help him.
That's what I say, but a lot of new players are arrogant, rude, and can't spell >_>
-
True. Half of my proposals are currently coming from a sleep-deprived mind. But the video idea was not meant for actual playing, but as to explain certain events. Even in words, there are some items that need explaining, like Arena stats, rare spins, or how Shard Golem works. Just minute details as opposed to individual deck analysis. I personally would rather listen to a tutorial than read a wiki on these topics.
-
Personally, I feel that what you guys are proposing is overly complicated. All you really need to "tutor" a newbie is to sit down with him for a few minutes, examine his deck, point out its flaws and strengths, suggest how to mod it a bit, and go from there. I'm not a fan of video tutorials and hypercam unless they're personal and aimed at one person. Just a few minutes in a chat with a 1:1 would be fine. Even if it's a different mentor each time. If you're an experienced vet and a newb pops into chat, just take a few minutes, answer his questions, and help him.
For sure, this is truth. However, I think that having 1-on-1 sessions in a PvP format (PwP - Player with player?), would allow for a much more detailed analysis of how and why a deck works or doesn't work, on a play-by-play basis - without the added distractions that chat brings. It's like learning to play almost any card game - a sit-down with an experienced player, with both players' hands visible, gives a chance to explain not only which cards belong (or don't) in a deck, but also a chance to directly show why and how they work. I imagine a new PvP/Sandbox format - multipurposed to not only allow for tutorials, but also to test out ideas from CI&A, to swap one card for another in mid-game (for example, to show the relative situational benefits of Otyugh vs. Maxwell's Demon, by swapping one for the other on board), to set play parameters (for example, to show your trainer the exact situation your last match was in, just before you lost), and whatever else.
A few points:
a) The Trainer is already a thing. So, adding/altering a player's access to various cards and upgrades, in a limited environment, is doable.
b) PvP 3 is already a thing. So, having deliberate match-ups, negotiated in chat (or by schedule), between trainers and pupils, is doable.
c) Spectator Mode is already a thing. So, a lecturer/assistant, with observing pupils (like any large college class), explaining their game as they go, is doable.
I envision an E:tG PvP with a simple "Sandbox mode" box to check before play. I'm not sure how complex that would be from a coding perspective, but conceptually I can't see how it would be any more complex than what we have now. If anything, I think it would simplify matters some: having scheduled demonstration games would allow for the maximum number of new players to observe a single game, saving instructors the time and effort required to continually answer the same questions in chat, over and over again. Not to mention the planning that War teams could do in such a space.
I propose that, as part of the title "Master of (element)," one of the responsibilities be being availible to instruct newbs, on a semi-regular (bi-weekly? monthly? whatevs) basis - pointing out the strengths, weaknesses, and internal synergies, in that element's domain.
Anyways, it doesn't seem too complex to me - however, a caveat: it's very, very late, and I haven't slept. Chances are, I'm missing something obvious.
edit: spelling error. *Yawn*
-
c) Spectator Mode is already a thing. So, a lecturer/assistant, with observing pupils (like any large college class), explaining their game as they go, is doable.
Spectator mode is so borked that I can only see it leading to confusion...
-
I'm not terribly experienced in games such as Elements, but I am a fairly avid gamer and one thing that I see which differs Elements is the fact that there isn't much skill involved in grinding. You grab a deck someone has conveniently made available on the forums and you go in; if you can play the deck even half-decently then chances are you'll be playing it to nearly it's maximal capacity. Only rather large blunders will hurt the performance of most decks.
Compared to other games, where your skill level is actually tested to a degree while grinding, it feels dull. If I go into a boss fight(FG equivalent) on an MMORPG even if I have a guide(Pre-assembled deck), I still have to be able to do what is in the guide in a limited amount of time while not getting my posterior so graciously handed to me by a difficult opponent. In Elements, it's just literally playing it rather simply, grab deck, play cards, profit. If there was some skill involved other than going to the forums and finding a deck, I'd enjoy grinding a lot more than I do now.
As it stands, it seems grinding just takes time and luck. Since there's little skill involved, it doesn't really feel to me like I'm earning rares; all I'm doing is stomping Bronze with a fully upped deck and hoping it spits out a rare. I started playing Elements from Kongregate and I'll blatantly admit I just wanted Badges, but Elements entranced me and I continued to play. I eventually came to this site after I forgot my Kongregate password and started playing here. I remember T50(Which isn't that old to some Veterans I guess) and such; without the forums I was building decks on my own and every victory I achieved felt GOOD. It felt like I came up with something(Even if already exists) on my own.
Deck building seems to be where the majority of the skill in Elements comes out, and with the forums removing this with great deck posts all grinding really boils down to is time/luck. I never felt like I was entitled to rares, but when I earned my first Eternity from the quest with only self built decks it felt a lot better than the rares I earn today by farming the Arena. I know it's hard to incorporate skill into something other than deck building, but that's personally why I think newbs feel like they are 'entitled' to rares; the grinding is just time based and there's no way to shorten it by any long amount of time through actual skill if you use the forums.
I'm sorry if my opinion is misinformed, but this is just the perspective I see. If the forums didn't exist Elements would've been a lot more fun for me; I know that I can just not go in the forums and not take decks, but it's quite tempting to take them once you know they exist. It's similar to using an overpowered gear of equipment in a game; it's not really wrong, but it drops the amount of skill required and it's VERY tempting to do.
-
Deck building seems to be where the majority of the skill in Elements comes out, and with the forums removing this with great deck posts all grinding really boils down to is time/luck. I never felt like I was entitled to rares, but when I earned my first Eternity from the quest with only self built decks it felt a lot better than the rares I earn today by farming the Arena. I know it's hard to incorporate skill into something other than deck building, but that's personally why I think newbs feel like they are 'entitled' to rares; the grinding is just time based and there's no way to shorten it by any long amount of time through actual skill if you use the forums.
I think it's not just that, but that deck building is, ultimately, a small part of the game. Once you've built a deck, the main part of it is still playing that deck. It's not like you build a deck for every match you play.
And it's not like deck building is a skill that's open to everyone. A complete newb simply doesn't have the :electrum to buy cards. And all but the most experienced players are unlikely to have all the cards they need Upped, so either have to grind to Up all the relevant cards or play an Unupped deck - which won't be as effective as the Unupped version.
Add in that a lot of the decks you'll face, particularly in the Arena, are entirely predictable and one of 3 or 4 basic templates, and it can be frustrating.
-
Deck building seems to be where the majority of the skill in Elements comes out, and with the forums removing this with great deck posts all grinding really boils down to is time/luck. I never felt like I was entitled to rares, but when I earned my first Eternity from the quest with only self built decks it felt a lot better than the rares I earn today by farming the Arena. I know it's hard to incorporate skill into something other than deck building, but that's personally why I think newbs feel like they are 'entitled' to rares; the grinding is just time based and there's no way to shorten it by any long amount of time through actual skill if you use the forums.
I think it's not just that, but that deck building is, ultimately, a small part of the game. Once you've built a deck, the main part of it is still playing that deck. It's not like you build a deck for every match you play.
And it's not like deck building is a skill that's open to everyone. A complete newb simply doesn't have the :electrum to buy cards. And all but the most experienced players are unlikely to have all the cards they need Upped, so either have to grind to Up all the relevant cards or play an Unupped deck - which won't be as effective as the Unupped version.
Add in that a lot of the decks you'll face, particularly in the Arena, are entirely predictable and one of 3 or 4 basic templates, and it can be frustrating.
I have to disagree. Elements the Game does have a very large emphasis on deckbuilding. If deckbuilding were a larger factor than playing skill then one would expect famous decks that were fine tuned to defeating opponents. If deckbuilding were a smaller factor then we would see little change in win ratio when decks were changed.
How many famous decks can you name? Does your win ratio with them resemble your win ratio with a starter deck?
EtG is 80% deckbuilding skill (including borrowed skill) and only 20% in game tactics.
Honestly I am being generous on the in game tactics side.
-
Elements is almost 80% game tactics, because it is very possible for noobs to misplay decks and lose with them. For example, you need to know when to start your shield chain with Mono-Aether, you need to know if you should skip a turn to discard a hope and target/time your fractals correctly with RoL/Hope, you need to know to save creatures in your hand for extended periods of time until you can quint them in certain rainbow stalls, and you need to know how to save/play/spam Sundials when you're playing Instosis.
The thing is that learning all of the above is pretty easy, so everyone who plays Elements competitively will use the same tactics. But is this not the same in most card games? In a professional Yu-Gi-Oh! tournament, for example, the play-style of two people (using identical decks and against identical opponents) would differ only by the amount of risks they want to take (and their guesswork on their opponent's strategy).
-
Elements is almost 80% game tactics, because it is very possible for noobs to misplay decks and lose with them. For example, you need to know when to start your shield chain with Mono-Aether, you need to know if you should skip a turn to discard a hope and target/time your fractals correctly with RoL/Hope, you need to know to save creatures in your hand for extended periods of time until you can quint them in certain rainbow stalls, and you need to know how to save/play/spam Sundials when you're playing Instosis.
The thing is that learning all of the above is pretty easy, so everyone who plays Elements competitively will use the same tactics. But is this not the same in most card games? In a professional Yu-Gi-Oh! tournament, for example, the play-style of two people (using identical decks and against identical opponents) would differ only by the amount of risks they want to take (and their guesswork on their opponent's strategy).
1)
If you are correct and in game tactics are a more significant factor, then the difference in win ratio against FGs between you using RoL/Hope and a newb using R0L/Hope would be larger than the difference between you using RoL/Hope and using the Light starter deck.
Is this an assertion you are willing to make?
2) Combo decks in EtG vs MtG
In EtG a combo deck player has 2 choices: When to play defensive cards and when to trigger the combo
In MtG a combo deck player has 3 choices: Defensive card or a search card, what to search for (defensive, search or combo) and when to trigger the combo
The 2 similar choices are more complex in MtG
When to play defensive cards is a matter of how to spread the defense so you survive the most draws. This is a question of efficiency.
Defensive card or Search card is a question of risk. Do you make yourself survive more draws or survive fewer more favorable draws.
In MtG triggering a combo requires considering what the opponent will do during the combo. In EtG it is merely calculating damage.
-
I have to disagree. Elements the Game does have a very large emphasis on deckbuilding. If deckbuilding were a larger factor than playing skill then one would expect famous decks that were fine tuned to defeating opponents. If deckbuilding were a smaller factor then we would see little change in win ratio when decks were changed.
How many famous decks can you name? Does your win ratio with them resemble your win ratio with a starter deck?
EtG is 80% deckbuilding skill (including borrowed skill) and only 20% in game tactics.
Honestly I am being generous on the in game tactics side.
I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying, because you're not disagreeing with me on anything other than the definition of the phrase "small part of the game". I meant it in the sense of how much time is spent building decks vs. how much time is spent playing the decks.
-
The thing is that learning all of the above is pretty easy, so everyone who plays Elements competitively will use the same tactics. But is this not the same in most card games?
I've never played any other similar games, so I couldn't tell you whether it's the same in them or not. But even if we assume that it is, that doesn't stop it being something which can be off-putting in this one.
-
I never paid attention to the people who told me to do stuff, cause nobody ever told me to do anything.
If you have nothing new to say, don't say it!
-
@ElementalDearWatson I have to say that even if building the initial deck is a small part of the game, fine tuning it still takes a certain amount of playing. Yes, time wise the majority of the time is spent playing the deck, but exactly how much skill is there in playing the deck? As Pineapple has stated, there are small nuances, but short of a very LARGE screw up or some luck, I don't think it really affects win-rate as much as bad deck construction.
It doesn't really take that long to learn how to play Intosis, I've never toyed with RoL/Hope and as in something like a SNbow is pretty much common sense. I mean, is a Newbie going to go spam his Sundials against Neptune early on? That's a major screw up which does drop the win rate, but how many Newbies would seriously play the deck like that? You can't really go wrong with a SNbow(Or even a Nova Rainbow) if you have about half a brain; don't play enough Nova's/SN's to get a Singularity, rush the opponent and draw out CC or PC with your less useful cards. I mean heck, when I play The Wrecking Ball it's a no brainer; the only thing that even has a CHANCE at stomping me is a Fire rush... Or maybe a heavy Aether control coupled with bad draws.
Actually PLAYING is consuming more time, but exactly how much skill went into playing it? As I said before, short of a large blunder the win-rate doesn't drop much for unskilled play. Sure, you can spend a few minutes making a fire rush, but is it really good if you randomly toss Fire cards in it? Some cards don't belong, and some cards have synergy with each-other that can be combined to make a deck more effective.
Isn't the trainer free? I've never used it, but it seems to be an open box that anyone can use to try out building decks. Sure, it takes time to build the decks, but once again... The most efficient grinders for rares don't really seem to require skill for Bronze, and if you have Rares you can grind higher ranks(Or maybe Silver with upped cards). I stomp Bronze consistently, but I can fail to win Rares due to luck of the spins. Just getting to the deck building part is taking me large amounts of time with no-skill grinding; why should this be the case? I'm not suggesting to make Rares more common; I'm merely saying that grinding as it is doesn't make much sense to me... It's long, it requires no skill, there's no guarantee of Rares. Other than time, luck and Upgrades(Which require more time), exactly what does grinding take? Compared to deck building, where you can create intricate synergies with cards and form strange strategies to throw opponents off guard while also countering their deck strategy... Well, deck building seems to require strategy and skill, unlike grinding.
It's a large part time-wise, but it's not really something that takes skill. It takes time to grind, and it should, but no amount of skill changes that grinding by large amounts with the existence of the forums. I don't think you're opposing the fact that it takes no skill, but the fact of the matter to me is that skill SHOULD shorten the time required to obtain items, but this is not the case. I mean, if I were to die in a game, I receive a penalty. Skilled play will help me avoid this death and continue further, obtaining more rewards. In Elements, it's like even if I have all the skill in the world, I'll be near-par with someone who took decks from the forum; we obtain near the same reward, but there's been virtually no skill involved in his playing. He's bypassed the skill required to avoid death(Which would be failure to build a good deck in Elements) while I have learned it the hard way; this doesn't seem fair at all because when we both come to grinding, neither of us has an advantage while I clearly have more skill.
Please note that I'm not saying I have more skill than anyone, I'm merely using a comparison. I'd rather not come off as someone with a rather large ego, and my apologies if I do with my arguments.
-
1)
If you are correct and in game tactics are a more significant factor, then the difference in win ratio against FGs between you using RoL/Hope and a newb using R0L/Hope would be larger than the difference between you using RoL/Hope and using the Light starter deck.
Is this an assertion you are willing to make?
That is a terrible analogy between deckbuilding and deckplaying because at least a newb has some basis of understanding for the game. If he has no clue how to use RoLs and Fractals in conjunction with Hope, then he will lose all of his games by Fractaling the opponent's creatures, playing all his RoLs to get them CC'd, or decking out by getting his dragons CC'd before he can fractal them. If he has some experience and understands the strategy behind the deck, then he isn't a newb anymore. So, is the level at which a newb can actually play RoL/Hope without losing 100% the same as the level at which starter decks are built? I cannot agree.
2) Combo decks in EtG vs MtG
The 2 similar choices are more complex in MtG
When to play defensive cards is a matter of how to spread the defense so you survive the most draws. This is a question of efficiency.
Defensive card or Search card is a question of risk. Do you make yourself survive more draws or survive fewer more favorable draws.
In MtG triggering a combo requires considering what the opponent will do during the combo. In EtG it is merely calculating damage.
I don't understand why you split up the "2 similar choices". Just because "Defensive card or Search card" is moved into deckbuilding in EtG (how many cards to invest in :time and Hourglasses vs. how many cards to invest in :aether and Dimensional Shields) doesn't mean that it isn't part of surviving (the first choice) in MtG. The first choice, of how to "spread the defense", may be a question of efficiency, but in EtG the most efficient choices factor in the opposing deck just as the second choise does in MtG.
You are assuming that there is no risk-taking involved in EtG. For every card in the game, including the ones that are "lit up", you can choose to not play them. When the card in question is "lit up", this results in gaining the opportunity cost of playing the card, i.e. in most cases you will have more quanta next turn. In some specific cases, for example Dimensional Shield, this also means you have 1 extra turn to either draw another Dimensional Shield or maintain your chain. This is not "merely calculating damage", it is "considering what the opponent will do" next turn and whether or not it is more strategic to play the card(s) in question. Does the opponent have enough quanta and card advantage to play a Titan? Does the opponent have enough Poison on me? How many Deflagrations can he play while I'm chaining shields? When "calculating damage" gives a probability distribution with a range between DEAD and ALIVE, I fail to see how it is any different from "considering what the opponent will do" in response.
And last but not least, you don't know your opponent's deck. So how exactly does "predicting your opponent" in MtG equate to using game tactics? If someone plays differently, they're just guessing differently (nothing to do with skill) or playing inefficiently. There is no deviation of skill in any card game once everyone has reached that peak of knowledge, so I don't see how it's physically possible for EtG to be different.
-
1)
If you are correct and in game tactics are a more significant factor, then the difference in win ratio against FGs between you using RoL/Hope and a newb using R0L/Hope would be larger than the difference between you using RoL/Hope and using the Light starter deck.
Is this an assertion you are willing to make?
That is a terrible analogy between deckbuilding and deckplaying because at least a newb has some basis of understanding for the game. If he has no clue how to use RoLs and Fractals in conjunction with Hope, then he will lose all of his games by Fractaling the opponent's creatures, playing all his RoLs to get them CC'd, or decking out by getting his dragons CC'd before he can fractal them. If he has some experience and understands the strategy behind the deck, then he isn't a newb anymore. So, is the level at which a newb can actually play RoL/Hope without losing 100% the same as the level at which starter decks are built? I cannot agree.
A newb has a weak but basic understanding of tactics. A starter deck is a weak but basic deck.
The analogy was Strong,Strong - Strong,Weak vs Strong,Strong - Weak,Strong.
2) Combo decks in EtG vs MtG
The 2 similar choices are more complex in MtG
When to play defensive cards is a matter of how to spread the defense so you survive the most draws. This is a question of efficiency.
Defensive card or Search card is a question of risk. Do you make yourself survive more draws or survive fewer more favorable draws.
In MtG triggering a combo requires considering what the opponent will do during the combo. In EtG it is merely calculating damage.
I don't understand why you split up the "2 similar choices". Just because "Defensive card or Search card" is moved into deckbuilding in EtG (how many cards to invest in :time and Hourglasses vs. how many cards to invest in :aether and Dimensional Shields) doesn't mean that it isn't part of surviving (the first choice) in MtG. The first choice, of how to "spread the defense", may be a question of efficiency, but in EtG the most efficient choices factor in the opposing deck just as the second choise does in MtG.
You are assuming that there is no risk-taking involved in EtG. For every card in the game, including the ones that are "lit up", you can choose to not play them. When the card in question is "lit up", this results in gaining the opportunity cost of playing the card, i.e. in most cases you will have more quanta next turn. In some specific cases, for example Dimensional Shield, this also means you have 1 extra turn to either draw another Dimensional Shield or maintain your chain. This is not "merely calculating damage", it is "considering what the opponent will do" next turn and whether or not it is more strategic to play the card(s) in question. Does the opponent have enough quanta and card advantage to play a Titan? Does the opponent have enough Poison on me? How many Deflagrations can he play while I'm chaining shields? When "calculating damage" gives a probability distribution with a range between DEAD and ALIVE, I fail to see how it is any different from "considering what the opponent will do" in response.
And last but not least, you don't know your opponent's deck. So how exactly does "predicting your opponent" in MtG equate to using game tactics? If someone plays differently, they're just guessing differently (nothing to do with skill) or playing inefficiently. There is no deviation of skill in any card game once everyone has reached that peak of knowledge, so I don't see how it's physically possible for EtG to be different.
I compared the orange pair and the yellow pair separately because they were separate above. They were separate above because they were separate questions.
I defined survival as how to maximum number of draws.
I did not include any deckbuilding choices because I was listing in game choices.
I did not list a risk choice for the EtG deck because most combo (aka OTK) decks do not have to choose between survival and other effects. Drawing is surviving another draw. If the OTK deck can go off then it is safe from the dead opponent.
MtG decks have to choose between surviving more draws or having better draws. They have an option to choose to risk a shorter lifespan in exchange for a faster combo. (Again this is about in game decisions.)
In MtG if you are playing an combo deck you need to predict in game whether the opponent has a counterspell in hand. This is a dimension of combo deck in game tactics that exists in MtG but not in EtG. Hence the height of in game tactics in lower in EtG for combo decks.
PS: A player skilled in in game prediction should be able to make informed decisions based on their guess of what is in the opponent's hand.
-
A lot of good posts in this topic. I've thoroughly enjoyed reading it.
My take on it: Deckbuilding is an art, some people are better at it than others. This holds true for all CCG's. I used to play MtG back in the day, and I was a HORRIBLE deck builder. And it cost a crapload of $$$ I didn't have. I have since gotten better at deckbuilding through trial and error playing Elements. By no means am I an expert, but I can say that I did come up with my own deck that has a 72% winrate in PvP2. That's better than what I was doing before, trying to make decks that I searched on the Forum. I actually created something that is my own, original idea that wins most of the time. I have a good deal of pride in that. I think that pride in creation may be something that is lacking in (some) noobs. A lot? Most?
On to grinding. Blah, blah, blah, grinding sucks, blah blah blah. I probably grinded(ground?) 2500-3000 matches between AI3 and Bronze for:
1) Rares. AI3 is probably the best place to grind for rare weapons, barring Eternity.
2) Cash for upgrades. AI3 is also probably the best place to grind for cash, risk-to-reward-wise.
3) Shards. Ever-elusive shards. The objects we covet. Morphing noobs to badasses. Not really...
I play mostly PvP2 now, and many times someone will ask me to let them win because they saw X rare of mine. My answer is simply this: "If you win, you will earn it. I have earned every one of my wins, and my opponents have earned every one of my losses."
I don't play to pander farms to noobs. I do offer tips and strategies to noobs. I answer any gameplay/mechanics questions that may arise. What they do with my advice, whether they take it or leave it, well, that's up to them.
-
@ElementalDearWatson I have to say that even if building the initial deck is a small part of the game, fine tuning it still takes a certain amount of playing. Yes, time wise the majority of the time is spent playing the deck, but exactly how much skill is there in playing the deck? As Pineapple has stated, there are small nuances, but short of a very LARGE screw up or some luck, I don't think it really affects win-rate as much as bad deck construction.
It doesn't really take that long to learn how to play Intosis, I've never toyed with RoL/Hope and as in something like a SNbow is pretty much common sense. I mean, is a Newbie going to go spam his Sundials against Neptune early on? That's a major screw up which does drop the win rate, but how many Newbies would seriously play the deck like that? You can't really go wrong with a SNbow(Or even a Nova Rainbow) if you have about half a brain; don't play enough Nova's/SN's to get a Singularity, rush the opponent and draw out CC or PC with your less useful cards. I mean heck, when I play The Wrecking Ball it's a no brainer; the only thing that even has a CHANCE at stomping me is a Fire rush... Or maybe a heavy Aether control coupled with bad draws.
Actually PLAYING is consuming more time, but exactly how much skill went into playing it? As I said before, short of a large blunder the win-rate doesn't drop much for unskilled play. Sure, you can spend a few minutes making a fire rush, but is it really good if you randomly toss Fire cards in it? Some cards don't belong, and some cards have synergy with each-other that can be combined to make a deck more effective.
Isn't the trainer free? I've never used it, but it seems to be an open box that anyone can use to try out building decks. Sure, it takes time to build the decks, but once again... The most efficient grinders for rares don't really seem to require skill for Bronze, and if you have Rares you can grind higher ranks(Or maybe Silver with upped cards). I stomp Bronze consistently, but I can fail to win Rares due to luck of the spins. Just getting to the deck building part is taking me large amounts of time with no-skill grinding; why should this be the case? I'm not suggesting to make Rares more common; I'm merely saying that grinding as it is doesn't make much sense to me... It's long, it requires no skill, there's no guarantee of Rares. Other than time, luck and Upgrades(Which require more time), exactly what does grinding take? Compared to deck building, where you can create intricate synergies with cards and form strange strategies to throw opponents off guard while also countering their deck strategy... Well, deck building seems to require strategy and skill, unlike grinding.
It's a large part time-wise, but it's not really something that takes skill. It takes time to grind, and it should, but no amount of skill changes that grinding by large amounts with the existence of the forums. I don't think you're opposing the fact that it takes no skill, but the fact of the matter to me is that skill SHOULD shorten the time required to obtain items, but this is not the case. I mean, if I were to die in a game, I receive a penalty. Skilled play will help me avoid this death and continue further, obtaining more rewards. In Elements, it's like even if I have all the skill in the world, I'll be near-par with someone who took decks from the forum; we obtain near the same reward, but there's been virtually no skill involved in his playing. He's bypassed the skill required to avoid death(Which would be failure to build a good deck in Elements) while I have learned it the hard way; this doesn't seem fair at all because when we both come to grinding, neither of us has an advantage while I clearly have more skill.
Please note that I'm not saying I have more skill than anyone, I'm merely using a comparison. I'd rather not come off as someone with a rather large ego, and my apologies if I do with my arguments.
My post was agreeing with you.
-
@ElementalDearWatson Oh, quite sorry then... It seems I misread your post a little(I read "It's not just that" as "It's not that"). My apologies.
-
sorry if it's been posted already, i skimmed the walls of text of page 4. what of periodically modding the starter decks?
once, the death deck was otys and birds, then cats and birds. which new duo could be found between death and another element? (birds, bones, or otherwise?) this is how a veteran (with the knowledge of the game) should think on how to help newbies.
heck, these starters i found were pretty useful for getting to know an element, maybe rather than thinking "grind moar" we should encourage to use the trainer or in my case (i know some frown on the practice) jumping from alt to alt until i got really comfortable in one account (the one in my profile).
heck, why not even do something completely different for the starters? like fractal earth golems as a :aether :earth duo? something unorthodox, fun, that could potentially grind ai3 quickly.
this, along with what all of you said, could help bridge the gap somewhat. no need to have a combo using SoW SoP and elite immortals to have fun (or humiliate an opponent).
my :electrum, hope it helps
blarg: