Why play Platinum?

[Arum]

VENI VEDI QUESTUS SUM!

[eaglgenes101]

VENI VEDI QUESTUS SUM!

Quid dixisti?

[ElementalDearWatson]

Hmm, I've been playing it today, and I can see the appeal.  However, I'd question whether it's really got more variety in it than Gold.  Amongst some familiar decks (Ghostmare is still depressingly popular), it's just got its own staples (Devourers, for example).

[Laxadarap]

Hmm, I've been playing it today, and I can see the appeal.  However, I'd question whether it's really got more variety in it than Gold.  Amongst some familiar decks (Ghostmare is still depressingly popular), it's just got its own staples (Devourers, for example).

The thing is: most people in plat are already rich enough where they don't care if their deck does well, so they try and do it with interesting decks.  I personally don't see a lot of ghostmares, poisonstalls are more common, but hey, its a 500 deck sample.  For example, my card today was shrieker, instead of making a shreiker rush, I went with TU shreiker with earthquake and silence.  For most people I've talked to in Plat, its about doing well with original decks.

[ElementalDearWatson]

The thing is: most people in plat are already rich enough where they don't care if their deck does well, so they try and do it with interesting decks.  I personally don't see a lot of ghostmares, poisonstalls are more common, but hey, its a 500 deck sample.  For example, my card today was shrieker, instead of making a shreiker rush, I went with TU shreiker with earthquake and silence.  For most people I've talked to in Plat, its about doing well with original decks.

It'd be lovely if that were true, but you still mostly get rainbows doing the same old boring things rainbows do.  A quick look at the top 500 reveals that there are currently 115  decks in Platinum.  That means 23.6% of Platinum decks are almost certainly rainbows.  And that, of course, isn't including Timebows.

I'm sure that part of the problem is that the game as a whole has so few cards, and not all of the cards being as useful or powerful as each other, making originality hard to achieve - why use Flood when it just makes your deck less likely to win?  If all elements were equally balanced, then you'd expect 1 out of every 12 decks you encounter to be  , but if there's only one or two decks that you can make with  , then that means that you're basically going to be facing the same deck on average every 12 games.

But, still, you can't help but roll your eyes when you get yet another variation on the same basic deck.

[Laxadarap]

It'd be lovely if that were true, but you still mostly get rainbows doing the same old boring things rainbows do.  A quick look at the top 500 reveals that there are currently 115  decks in Platinum.  That means 23.6% of Platinum decks are almost certainly rainbows.  And that, of course, isn't including Timebows.

I'm sure that part of the problem is that the game as a whole has so few cards, and not all of the cards being as useful or powerful as each other, making originality hard to achieve - why use Flood when it just makes your deck less likely to win?  If all elements were equally balanced, then you'd expect 1 out of every 12 decks you encounter to be  , but if there's only one or two decks that you can make with  , then that means that you're basically going to be facing the same deck on average every 12 games.

But, still, you can't help but roll your eyes when you get yet another variation on the same basic deck.

I agree that there are a lot of novabows, but don't forget, entropy is an extremely strong element.  It's nowhere near as common, but there are antimatter stalls (quite a few plat players have a purple nymph or two).  However, you can't really hate on rainbows either.  One of the beautiful parts of a rainbow deck is that it's strategy doesn't involve a whole lot of strategy.  It makes them unique.  Even if all of those were rainbows, I doubt you could find 5 that were identical. 

[ElementalDearWatson]

I agree that there are a lot of novabows, but don't forget, entropy is an extremely strong element.  It's nowhere near as common, but there are antimatter stalls (quite a few plat players have a purple nymph or two).

I've seen maybe one, and I've been playing Platinum on and off all day.

However, you can't really hate on rainbows either.

Oh yes I can.  I think it's the epitome of lazy Arena deck building.  Surely the point of an Arena deck is to try to use the Oracle card in an interesting way?  So fair enough if it's a Quantum Pillar or Nova, but if you're just going to build a deck which would play essentially the same if you'd have got any card off the Oracle, then how is that creative?

I never put more than a duo or maybe trio deck in the Arena. 

One of the beautiful parts of a rainbow deck is that it's strategy doesn't involve a whole lot of strategy.  It makes them unique.

It makes them easy and unimaginative.

Even if all of those were rainbows, I doubt you could find 5 that were identical.

So?  That doesn't make them any less lazy.

[Laxadarap]

Ahh ok, there is a big difference between calling somebody lazy and not being enough options  

I agree that it is lazy, but thats a personality trait, and changing the game won't really fix that.  However, back to the topic.  If it's as unoriginal and lame as you claim, it should actually be beneficial to grinders.  If every type of deck is the same, then it's easier to build counters.  It's the unique nonconventional decks that act as counters to the usualy.

[ElementalDearWatson]

So fair enough if it's a Quantum Pillar or Nova

In fact, I'd even like to note that even if you get these cards you don't have to go for a bow.  I've got a deck I like to play sometimes which I call *adopts best Valley Girl accent* "OMG! That's, Like, Totally Random!" which uses Quantum Pillars and Supernovas*:

by ElementalDearWatson

Hover over cards for details, click for permalink

Deck import code : [Select]

6qq 6qq 6qq 6qq 6qq 6s1 6s1 6s1 6s1 6u3 6u3 6u3 6u3 6u3 6u3 6u6 6u6 6u6 6u6 7q2 7q2 7q2 7q2 7q2 7q2 7ri 7ri 7ri 7ri 7ri 8pj

Blanks are Shards of Serendipity.

As a player it's not much good for anything above AI3, but in Platinum it should work okay, although the AI won't enjoy the randomness of play.  But the point is that even if you get an obvious card you don't have to do the obvious thing.  So you get a Crimson Dragon.  Why not try to power it with Fireflies, rather than making yet another Immorush?  That's the kind of thing I don't see much of.  Probably mostly because an Immorush is going to clobber most players, whereas powering fire cards with Fireflies is inefficient and susceptible to CC, but if you don't care how your deck does, then why not do it anyway?

*Probably not really original to me, given how few deck types there ultimately are, but if it's a copy it's an unintentional one.

[ElementalDearWatson]

Ahh ok, there is a big difference between calling somebody lazy and not being enough options   p

I think both are true.

I agree that it is lazy, but thats a personality trait, and changing the game won't really fix that.  However, back to the topic.  If it's as unoriginal and lame as you claim, it should actually be beneficial to grinders.  If every type of deck is the same, then it's easier to build counters.  It's the unique nonconventional decks that act as counters to the usualy.

That depends on whether the benefit is measured in  earned or fun had, really.

[Laxadarap]

Since when is grinding supposed to be fun? (excluding mutationdecks etc.)  The point of grinding is mindless playing to get money, rares, and upgrades.  In my opinion, playing against a computer is never on any game.  The fun part is using what you have against other players, and there are plenty of options for that.  PvP2 isn't horrible moneywise, and you find lots of people trying out concept decks.  Last pvp game I played was against a blue nymph deck.  Also, we have a forum to organize events (main/best purpose imo).  These are what  is supposed to be fun, not grinding to get a higher score/more money.  There has to be some tradeoff somewhere.  For example, the funnest decks to play with, aren't the most effective.

[ElementalDearWatson]

Since when is grinding supposed to be fun?

Since when is playing a game not supposed to be fun?  If it's not fun, then doesn't that rather defeat the object?