A few details about T500

[Chromatophore]

1. Maybe in main menu players should see next opponent, not 1st Player in league?

Would be too easy if you know who's coming next.  After playing a deck once, you could just load a counter to each one before playing it

Agreed.

1. Maybe in main menu players should see next opponent, not 1st Player in league? What is the sense to see who is 1st and which card he won in Oracle?

Maybe if you are trying to take over 1st place you want to build a counter to hand the leader some loss.

2. Decks with 12 Phase Shields, 12 Rewinds and others aren't so good idea... 12 Phase Shields means 36 turns without damage, when I haven't got PC (a lot of elements hasn't got any PC). Phase Shield decks should be beatenable also when opponent hasn't got PC... (in PVP it is possible, because 6 Phase means 18 turns).

I haven't played much in arena, but with all the SoGs and sanctuaries and hourglasses i expect to see, some repeatable PC is probably advisable anyhow so i'm not too concerned with phase shields

[Atico]

Seeing only ONE card make game too easier?

3. System of rank is very... stupid. Player with stats 84-44 has got the same rank as I with stats 33-3... He won 65% games, I 92%...

[Jangoo]

Today, I got a different card from the Oracle (Life Pendulum).  However, when I tried to change my arena deck so it would have the new card from the Oracle in it, I couldn't remove the card I got from the Oracle yesterday (Anubis).  I don't know if this is where I'm supposed to report bugs, but could someone please try to fix it?

Did you select "Build a new deck" rather than "Modify deck"? Otherwise it's not a bug at all.

So, each player may only have one deck up at a time?

Thx for answering the other question earlier. 

[Hodari]

Seeing only ONE card make game too easier?

Seeing the name of the player using it does...especially for repeat matches against the same deck.  Once you've played them once, you'll know exactly what they have.  And to some extent yes, even seeing just one card CAN help a lot.  At the very least it gives some ides what elements they are playing and if that card is part of a combo, it may be a very big hint to what their whole deck is.  If I see an Unstable gas as their oracle card, I'd certainly pack some mirror shields.  If I see momentum, I'd want lobotomizers and probably some purifies too as that could work nicely in a poison deck,

[Sevs]

I just faced a timebow with 12 sacts and 12 SoG and a few feral bonds. I had a pulvy out early to midgame killing something every turn and then flew it and played another. spamming 2 pulvies for 8 turns and outdamaging a few miracles. Luckily i won by deckout. but the healing is ridiculous.

6 feral bonds 12 SoG 12 Sancs. 4 pulvies and 4 miracles. The only way to beat that is by luck or a 200 point firebolt kill.


Also i heard that Zanz was worried about the servers with a top 10 list. what if it only updated every 10-20 minutes or so. so the updating isnt overloading the server?

[Chromatophore]

3. System of rank is very... stupid. Player with stats 84-44 has got the same rank as I with stats 33-3... He won 65% games, I 92%...

Not knowing quite how rank works, I still mostly agree, but there is something to be said for longevity.  There is hp loss over time and more counters to a particular deck will tend to appear over time.

[Atico]

Seeing only ONE card make game too easier?

Seeing the name of the player using it does...especially for repeat matches against the same deck.  Once you've played them once, you'll know exactly what they have.  And to some extent yes, even seeing just one card CAN help a lot.  At the very least it gives some ides what elements they are playing and if that card is part of a combo, it may be a very big hint to what their whole deck is.  If I see an Unstable gas as their oracle card, I'd certainly pack some mirror shields.  If I see momentum, I'd want lobotomizers and probably some purifies too as that could work nicely in a poison deck,

All is OK, but in Arena Menu when You will see ONLY main card (not Player nick) You won't know which player will be next The same card has got a lot of players.
But ok, it isn't very important I want to make something different than this which we see today, because for me it is unuseful information who is first
Bigger problems are with (bugged?) rank system.

[TheonlyrealBeef]

So, each player may only have one deck up at a time?

Yes, setting up a new deck deletes the old one, the decay it has gotten and it's current record.

[Essence]

6 feral bonds 12 SoG 12 Sancs. 4 pulvies and 4 miracles. The only way to beat that is by luck or a 200 point firebolt kill.

Ohai!  May I introduce you to Veen's Vicious Viotech?  Is good. 8)


[edit]Also, how the hell are you people getting like 60+ games vs. your decks?  I've had a Supernova deck up for 36 hours now and I've only gotten 25 games played against it total.  Is that the difference between Gold and Platinum, or am I just getting amazingly unlucky with people RNGing up my deck?[/edit]

[Sevs]

6 feral bonds 12 SoG 12 Sancs. 4 pulvies and 4 miracles. The only way to beat that is by luck or a 200 point firebolt kill.

Ohai!  May I introduce you to Veen's Vicious Viotech?  Is good. 8)


[edit]Also, how the hell are you people getting like 60+ games vs. your decks?  I've had a Supernova deck up for 36 hours now and I've only gotten 25 games played against it total.  Is that the difference between Gold and Platinum, or am I just getting amazingly unlucky with people RNGing up my deck?[/edit]

I think the higher your rank, the more games you get.

I started around 48th but got 2 games in 24 hours. i randomly got a few games that won shooting me up to 20th and then games just started rolling in till i got to 14th or so. and now i have ~100 games.

Kirch and QT are probably both around 200 by now. they were at 150 the last i checked a day ago

[Essence]

Well that doesn't seem right.  The chance of getting any given deck is dependent on their winrate?  That seems like a surefire way to make sure that the winning decks stay the winning decks, even if newer decks are technically outperforming them on a win/loss ration basis. 

The deck selection shouldn't be weighted, it should be random.

[Chromatophore]

Well that doesn't seem right.  The chance of getting any given deck is dependent on their winrate?  That seems like a surefire way to make sure that the winning decks stay the winning decks, even if newer decks are technically outperforming them on a win/loss ration basis. 

Unless people can (and do) construct effective counters to the higher ranked decks (perhaps unlikely in current system) to bring their ranks down with the increased playrate.

The deck selection shouldn't be weighted, it should be random.

I agree.