Undefeatable long term strategy

[ElementalDearWatson]

...and play less game 'cause it will go over the 500th position.

Firstly, so what?  As I said above, it's not exactly like the rewards are huge.  A deck in the Arena gets between 3 and 5 plays in 24 hours.  If we assume that it wins every one and gets a thumbs up for every win, then we're talking 72 - 120 .  At the moment, 1 EM win against Platinum will get you 4 times that.  In 24 hours of having a winning deck up, you'll earn a quarter of what you can in 1 minute of playing the Arena.  So why should anybody care?

Secondly, say your deck does lose and becomes inactive.  That means that you get to create a new one the next day.  I got rid of a deck that had 3 wins and 0 losses today because I wanted to make a deck with my new Oracle card.  Given that this is a deck building game, I'd have thought that people would be interested in the actual deck building.

And, finally, I'm not advocating putting up decks which lose.  I'm advocating trying to put up interesting decks which might not win as often, but which still win.  Say you've got your Oracle-card ignoring deck that wins 90% of the time.  Isn't it more of an interesting challenge to come up with something that doesn't ignore the Oracle card, but which can still win?  Say it only wins 60% of the time. It's still winning and, as I said above, it's not like you're going to become rich off any deck you put up.  We're talking 72 , rather than 120.  Not a huge difference.

And it can surprise you.  I always try to make something interesting, and I even have additional things I do to make it more of a challenge for myself, yet my decks get in the top 100 fairly often, and I've even had one in first place for a couple of days.  Now that felt like a real achievement, because the deck was something that I created myself without just copy-and-pasting the same thing I put up every day, and the Oracle card was an integral part of the deck.  Of course, sometimes I crash and burn, too.  But never mind, because I can just make another one.

The idea that the only way to win is to copy and paste one of the 5 or 6 decks that almost everybody puts up is, as I said in my previous post, just a sign of a lack of imagination.

everybody wants to win! that's the point of every game. we can't change that

I thought the point of playing games was to have fun.

[Faro]

...and play less game 'cause it will go over the 500th position.

Firstly, so what?  As I said above, it's not exactly like the rewards are huge.  A deck in the Arena gets between 3 and 5 plays in 24 hours.  If we assume that it wins every one and gets a thumbs up for every win, then we're talking 72 - 120 .  At the moment, 1 EM win against Platinum will get you 4 times that.  In 24 hours of having a winning deck up, you'll earn a quarter of what you can in 1 minute of playing the Arena.  So why should anybody care?

Secondly, say your deck does lose and becomes inactive.  That means that you get to create a new one the next day.  I got rid of a deck that had 3 wins and 0 losses today because I wanted to make a deck with my new Oracle card.  Given that this is a deck building game, I'd have thought that people would be interested in the actual deck building.

And, finally, I'm not advocating putting up decks which lose.  I'm advocating trying to put up interesting decks which might not win as often, but which still win.  Say you've got your Oracle-card ignoring deck that wins 90% of the time.  Isn't it more of an interesting challenge to come up with something that doesn't ignore the Oracle card, but which can still win?  Say it only wins 60% of the time. It's still winning and, as I said above, it's not like you're going to become rich off any deck you put up.  We're talking 72 , rather than 120.  Not a huge difference.

And it can surprise you.  I always try to make something interesting, and I even have additional things I do to make it more of a challenge for myself, yet my decks get in the top 100 fairly often, and I've even had one in first place for a couple of days.  Now that felt like a real achievement, because the deck was something that I created myself without just copy-and-pasting the same thing I put up every day, and the Oracle card was an integral part of the deck.  Of course, sometimes I crash and burn, too.  But never mind, because I can just make another one.

The idea that the only way to win is to copy and paste one of the 5 or 6 decks that almost everybody puts up is, as I said in my previous post, just a sign of a lack of imagination.

everybody wants to win! that's the point of every game. we can't change that

I thought the point of playing games was to have fun.

I don't think people are interested in  award from the Arena (as you said), but it's important to have more games possible to have a better idea of how the submission performs.
infact with my alt account I stay in Bronze and it's really fun build a deck that a lot of people will face, but it happens only in Bronze and maybe Silver !
I didn't say that is fun copy/paste the best decks (I don't do that), but everybody want's to be first, it's in human nature!
that's why AI and rating system must change to really encourage people doing something new.
until then, Arena will be the same unfortunately...

[ElementalDearWatson]

I don't think people are interested in  award from the Arena (as you said), but it's important to have more games possible to have a better idea of how the submission performs.

But if people are just posting the same decks over and over and over (which is what most people do), then why do they need to get a better idea of how it performs?  They know how it performs, which is why they're posting it.

I didn't say that is fun copy/paste the best decks (I don't do that)

But most people do, and it's incredibly boring and lacking in imagination.  If people would take a little of the focus off mindlessly winning and put a little more on exercising their brains, then not only would Arena be better, but they'd get more satisfaction out of winning when they do.

[...]but everybody want's to be first, it's in human nature!

If that were true, then I'd just stick up the same deck over and over and over, rather than creating additional rules to make it harder for myself.

In any case, I'm not denying that people prioritise winning too much.  I'm saying that the fact that people prioritise winning too much makes the game boring and shows that they are lacking in imagination.

[Faro]

I think we are saying the same thing
but only Zanz could solve this problem IMO.
even if all forum's users will go creative, there will be lots of players that don't read the forum and go for n°1 as always...

[allembrande jackson]

I think it is really important to debunk the idea that everyone plays 'just' to win.  People who just want to win can play with themselves, on a solo game.  Telling yourself that everyone just plays to win, so it is ok for you to make boring decks, is poor reasoning.  Shame on those who purport to follow the herd; greater shame when the herd isn't even going that way...

[Faro]

I never said that I want to win and I never said that is ok for me that everybody want to do so.
I know that my english is bad, but where did you read it?

[Sorathor]

Why should I NOT go for a mono dark, if i spin black dragon?
For me it's much more enyoable to see my deck performing well than building some crapload, that will drop after 1 or 2 wins for sure.

That doesnt mean that I run the same archetype regardlessly what I spin and I also try some completely new things, when I get a nice card.

The thumps up-system is a joke and as long as decks can't get any benefits from it while losing, so it rewards building effective decks instead of creative ones.
Even if you find a creative strong deck, who says that you get thumps-ups? I'm sure some players downvote the decks they are weak to no matter if it was creative or not.

But you cant blame me for how slowly cards are changed and therefore how slowly the metagame changes especially in the arena.
This game is designed for grinding, every aspect rewards grinding and nothing else.

Changes in the game only happen, if one imba card is abused for a 65%+ FG farmer, but shardless play is dominated by Dark + Aether since I started almost 4 years ago. I can count the cards (excluding  shards) introduced or changed in that time span with my fingers.
Its not the players job to move the game into a certain direction.

But I dont wanna sound too harsh with the devs here, me still coming back to this game should be proof enough, that this is still a nice game and there are still enough challenges around.
If you want to beat bronze you have to be able to get around a dim shield chain, and you know that and I know that and everybody who played arena more than twice knows that. So if you know your opponents, wheres your problem?

[allembrande jackson]

Mono-dark orthodox drain is classic and fun to play once in a while; if you spin Black Dragon, Devourer, or Dusk Shiled then you pretty much have to make a drainer.  I just lose faith in other people's creativity when I see a deck which spun a Photon going Aether rush - there is no flavour.

And I don't want to sound harsh to the players, but player DO need to take responsibility for the flavour of the game, in partnership with the developers.

[ElementalDearWatson]

Mono-dark orthodox drain is classic and fun to play once in a while; if you spin Black Dragon, Devourer, or Dusk Shiled then you pretty much have to make a drainer.

No you don't.  There's plenty of combinations of cards you can use.

I roll a random element that I have to incorporate into my decks.  For an experiment I just rolled and got .  So, with that combo and one of the cards you mentioned, I'd probably go for something like Vampires, Adrenaline and Siphon Life.  If it was the Devourer, then I might go for a drainer after all (after all, making the Oracle card an integral part of your deck is a good thing.  It's for this reason that, for example, while I'll usually automatically give a thumbs down to a rainbow, I won't do so if the Oracle card was Supernova), so I'd probably go for something like Mitosis, Eclipse, Siphon Life and some quanta so the Devourers could burrow.  Maybe Siphon Life again.

Of course, I'd have to play the deck myself a few times to see how the AI plays it (I can see, for example, problems with the AI burrowing the Devourers and then just sitting on the Mitosises) and modify accordingly (or abandon entirely if it doesn't work), but that's part of the fun.  Creating something, testing it, then leaving it to do its thing once you know that it'll do okay.

Of course, I don't expect everybody to play the game the way I do, and I recognise that my method is both more difficult and unorthodox.  And I also agree that there's no harm in putting out a bog-standard deck every now and then - I've done it myself.  In fact the deck I've got up at the moment isn't particularly clever (although I'll bet it's not what most people would have as first choice for a deck - not one single Graboid).  But when you can tell exactly what cards a deck is going to have in it just from the element of the Oracle card and the element of their Mark, then it's a sorry situation.  So I just wanted to point out that the idea that if you draw a card you have to make a draining deck is wrong.

And if you do step outside the norm a little you can do well.  I've been top 100 with a Vampire/Adrenaline deck before now.  My current Graboidless deck is 4-0 after less than a day and sitting at 111, despite the fact that most people would have gone straight for Graboids (if they were locked in to doing a deck, anyway).  And you know what?  If I draw an interesting card tomorrow, I'll probably make something new, even if my current deck has risen up the ranks and looks like a contender for the top 10.  If I don't, I'll leave it up.

I just think that playing the game is more fun than winning it.  That is supposed to be the point of games, right?  To enjoy playing them.

[DeathKnyte]

I saw this thread when it was first made, and couldn't figure if the OP was serious, or not.

Now that I have seen a little more from the OP, it now looks like just a simple case of needing a little more experience with playing in the arena, and progressing on to higher level arenas.

In Bronze, you'll find whatever decks people think "work" with their current card pool. Since a lot of the players putting decks there are just starting out, if they think that (for example) rustlers are over powered, they will use it in near every deck they create - even if the Oracle gives them an antlion.

Now then, for yourself, as the "grinder", you also likely have a limited card pool, if you are starting out. Therefore, if your deck has no real answer to the dreaded "rustler", then of course you will be frustrated every time you encounter an arena deck which contains them.

I must have played thousands of games in bronze by now, and trust me on this; "earthquake" is not such a threat as you make it out to be - compared to other much more common deck types placed there.

Once you have played a little more, you will start noticing that mono aether is quite common, and the most over-used card will be dimensional shields. I suggest you concentrate your grinder deck on something that can handle those instead, else you will be forever frustrated whenever you encounter them - which will be way more often than a deck containing a couple of earthquake cards.

You can post your current arena grinder in the Deck Help section of the forums, and other people will be glad to offer suggestions on how to improve it, or what you should be aiming for in upgrades, based on where you currently are in the arena.


And yes; this thread should be treated seriously, if it is placed in General Discussion. If it is really a joke, then a moderator should have it moved to the appropriate location.

[allembrande jackson]

Nope: Not a joke!

I agree; now that I have forayed into the silver and gold arenas, I do see a few more decks springing out; mostly these are deck-ideas made possible by upgrades, though.  Given this, I do still see a reasonable number of regurgitations.  I would say that roughly one third of the decks I see in Silver are just classic decks off of the 'strategies' page, pasted into the arena.  Lame!

I play a mutation deck which, in reference to what I said above, is a useless unupped deck but a wonderful upped deck.  Even so, I can find the exact same deck I came to design on my own in the deck-archives.

I think the larger problem (though not an excuse for lazy playing) is card selection.  With a basically static pool of cards, and a small pool at that, it doesn't take very long for everything to be tried and tested, and every possible strategy to be playtested for win-percentages.  I think maybe my whining has been misplaced; I think the stagnation is built in to some degree.

In retrospect, sorry for boring many of you with this whole thread.

[allembrande jackson]

I thought of a way to liven up the thread:  Awards!

Here is an award for a real gem of a deck ... there I was on my fifth arena game and this guy got me, with my own strategy!  He blocked me with a series of phase shields, and hit me with totally unrelated creatures.  The lack of thematic sense almost had me, but the kicker was: his oracle spin was an emerald shield!  Oh the crushing irreverence!!!

This guy wins the "I don't give a **** what the oracle gave me: PHASESHIELD!!!" award