Rare rights (rants)

[Pineapple]

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).

[OldTrees]

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.

[ElementalDearWatson]

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.

[ElementalDearWatson]

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.

[artimies7]

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!

[Trickster122]

@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.

[Pineapple]

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 and Hourglasses vs. how many cards to invest in 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.

[OldTrees]

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 and Hourglasses vs. how many cards to invest in 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.

[Trollinator]

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]

@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.

[Trickster122]

@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.

[Guizonde]

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  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  , hope it helps