Elements 1.31

[iancudorinmarian]

maybe some new AI3 plz? Also I appreciate all the work. I love your game.

[Cheesy111]

Nope. That would just make getting wins near impossible for arena decks.

Well, firstly, that implies that everybody would necessarily auto-quit if they weren't 99% sure they were going to win a match.  I think that a) matches aren't necessarily that easy to determine against a good deck and b) people are prepared to have a challenging match (and would, often, prefer one to either a squash or a drubbing).

And, secondly, wouldn't an Arena win being hard to achieve make an Arena win mean something?  Wouldn't you say that putting up a deck which ignores the Oracle card but which has a long-proven track record of doing very well in the Arena and then just leaving it there for 3 weeks makes getting wins so easy as to be meaningless? 

Besides which, the potential gains for the person putting the Arena deck up are small compared to the potential gains for the person playing against the Arena deck.  I think the bias should be towards making it fun for the person playing against the decks, rather than towards making it easy for the person putting the deck up.

Actually, you'd be helping the people who made oraclebows (comparatively).  Consider:
Person A is playing Gold League Arena.
Person B puts up a monotime ghost/dragon rush. (Card: Ghost of the Past)
Person C puts up a ghostmare. (Card: Ghost of the Past)
Person D puts up an oraclebow.  (Card: Nova)
Person E puts up an oraclebow.  (Card: Skeleton)

Person A is more likely to skip players B, C, and D.  This gives no advantage to players who put up original decks when they have the possibility to put up unoriginal decks(Person B).  In the current system these players would generally be given thumbs-up, in the new system they would not get any plays.  Putting up an oraclebow with an 'easy' card like Skeleton, however, is rewarded with more plays than an almost exactly the same oraclebow put up with a generally powerful card such as nova.

[ElementalDearWatson]

Actually, you'd be helping the people who made oraclebows (comparatively).  Consider:
Person A is playing Gold League Arena.
Person B puts up a monotime ghost/dragon rush. (Card: Ghost of the Past)
Person C puts up a ghostmare. (Card: Ghost of the Past)
Person D puts up an oraclebow.  (Card: Nova)
Person E puts up an oraclebow.  (Card: Skeleton)

Person A is more likely to skip players B, C, and D.

I'd play B and none of the others.  I'm not sure why you think people would skip B and play E.

  Putting up an oraclebow with an 'easy' card like Skeleton, however, is rewarded with more plays than an almost exactly the same oraclebow put up with a generally powerful card such as nova.

Why would it be rewarded?  Why would people be more likely to play what they can see is an Oraclebow if that bow has a skeleton?

Almost all Oraclebows are powered by Supernovae.  Why would having one as the Oracle card make people less likely to play the hand?  Why would people forget they find Oraclebows boring if the Oracle card is a skeleton?

[Alchemist]

Sometimes small changes in existing features balance the game much more than adding new ones. So - I like this changes.  And I agree with iancudorinmarian - some new AI-s could be fun, especialy now with all those new cards.

[Jenkar]

Nope. That would just make getting wins near impossible for arena decks.

Well, firstly, that implies that everybody would necessarily auto-quit if they weren't 99% sure they were going to win a match.  I think that a) matches aren't necessarily that easy to determine against a good deck and b) people are prepared to have a challenging match (and would, often, prefer one to either a squash or a drubbing).

You are wrong on both, in my opinion. It's pretty viable to make decks that have a 95%+ win rate vs another deck type, and people tend to be primitive (reason why thumbs up no work : people thumbs down because they lose 90% of the time)

And, secondly, wouldn't an Arena win being hard to achieve make an Arena win mean something?  Wouldn't you say that putting up a deck which ignores the Oracle card but which has a long-proven track record of doing very well in the Arena and then just leaving it there for 3 weeks makes getting wins so easy as to be meaningless? 

They already do. The fact is, as it is now, you can choose to use an unimaginative deck, MAYBE get to rank 1, and win some money and that's it. However, you can also try to use an imaginative but efficient deck, maybe reach rank 1, and win some money and have people say : nice arena deck in chat.

Besides which, the potential gains for the person putting the Arena deck up are small compared to the potential gains for the person playing against the Arena deck.  I think the bias should be towards making it fun for the person playing against the decks, rather than towards making it easy for the person putting the deck up.

Hum. So basicly, increase the rewards for those with large rewards already (player), while diminishing them for those with small ones already (people submitting decks)? Something is wrong with that.

In my opinion, the arena has a good risk/reward ratio. Say you win 50% vs plat, you get tons of money + a bit more than 1 rare every 4 games. Risk : frustation. Imo, good enough.

[Absol]

The only problem i see with thumbs up/down is that thumbs up doesn't do anything to the loser. You give extra electrum to the winner, and that's it. You got nothing in return. (in terms of valuable. Of course, good game is valuable, but if arena is to grind, then rares are more valuable. At least money)
If you thumbs down, you don't lose anything. So why thumbs up? Basically, the thumbs up button is no different than donation button. Except it didn't cost you anything. It also didn't give you anything either.

The simplest fix for this dilemma is to give some sort of reward for thumbing up. Like mentioned somewhere, a simple 5 second delay before thumbs down button becomes available is fair enough. This way, if you don't want to give extra electrum, you will have to wait.
But it opens up another problem if people thumbing up all decks. But hey, constant thumbs up is better than constant thumbs down.

Or not.

[ElementalDearWatson]

You are wrong on both, in my opinion. It's pretty viable to make decks that have a 95%+ win rate vs another deck type, and people tend to be primitive (reason why thumbs up no work : people thumbs down because they lose 90% of the time)

So, in your opinion, people playing the Arena would make a deck which they know beats just one specific kind of deck and then constantly skip matches until they encounter that particular type of deck? 

If diversity and innovation were encouraged in Arena, then you'd be far less likely to keep encountering the same decks over and over again (which is rather the point of my suggestion).  So you've got an anti-Ghostmare deck?  Well, if there is only 1 Ghostmare out of the 500 decks in the league, then you're going to waste a lot more time and than you win if you're skipping every deck that isn't a Ghostmare.

They already do. The fact is, as it is now, you can choose to use an unimaginative deck, MAYBE get to rank 1, and win some money and that's it. However, you can also try to use an imaginative but efficient deck, maybe reach rank 1, and win some money and have people say : nice arena deck in chat.

If it truly meant something, then you wouldn't keep encountering the same decks over and over again in the leagues, would you?  With what I propose you'd get for having a deck that's interesting enough to play, and you'd get considerably more for having a deck that's interesting enough to play and which will also win.

Hum. So basicly, increase the rewards for those with large rewards already (player), while diminishing them for those with small ones already (people submitting decks)? Something is wrong with that.

No, if you read back over my suggestion you'll see that the rewards for the player remain the same, whereas the potential rewards for the person submitting the decks are increased greatly.

In my opinion, the arena has a good risk/reward ratio. Say you win 50% vs plat, you get tons of money + a bit more than 1 rare every 4 games. Risk : frustation. Imo, good enough.

Whereas with my suggestion you could have exactly the same rewards without the frustration.

[Jenkar]

You are wrong on both, in my opinion. It's pretty viable to make decks that have a 95%+ win rate vs another deck type, and people tend to be primitive (reason why thumbs up no work : people thumbs down because they lose 90% of the time)

So, in your opinion, people playing the Arena would make a deck which they know beats just one specific kind of deck and then constantly skip matches until they encounter that particular type of deck? 

If diversity and innovation were encouraged in Arena, then you'd be far less likely to keep encountering the same decks over and over again (which is rather the point of my suggestion).  So you've got an anti-Ghostmare deck?  Well, if there is only 1 Ghostmare out of the 500 decks in the league, then you're going to waste a lot more time and than you win if you're skipping every deck that isn't a Ghostmare.

*rephrases* that beats certain kinds of decks. Even 10 out of the 500 is enough (1/50, skipping at 4 secs => 1 every 3 mins 1/2. That's a guaranteeed win vs plat every 6-7 mins, assumin' your deck is slow as znaz)

They already do. The fact is, as it is now, you can choose to use an unimaginative deck, MAYBE get to rank 1, and win some money and that's it. However, you can also try to use an imaginative but efficient deck, maybe reach rank 1, and win some money and have people say : nice arena deck in chat.

If it truly meant something, then you wouldn't keep encountering the same decks over and over again in the leagues, would you?  With what I propose you'd get for having a deck that's interesting enough to play, and you'd get considerably more for having a deck that's interesting enough to play and which will also win.

Two points to make here :
1) Yes, it means something : not 95%, more like 70% of the leagues are unoriginal. If there was no community behind there'd probably be 95% of unoriginality.
2) Annnd you'd basicly be FORCED not to use some kinds of decks. What if i like submitting ghostmare in arena because it annoys people? (since i do not give a care for  )

Hum. So basicly, increase the rewards for those with large rewards already (player), while diminishing them for those with small ones already (people submitting decks)? Something is wrong with that.

No, if you read back over my suggestion you'll see that the rewards for the player remain the same, whereas the potential rewards for the person submitting the decks are increased greatly.

I still see the reverse. Let me devellop.
A) Player who plays can nitpick and basicly choose opponents. Win % increases enormously, so reward increase (base reward x win % = reward)
B) K, reread. So basicly, submit a farm and enjoy free electrum for submitting a losing deck. (people won't be playing winning decks, even if they're original. Unless you can make a deck which looks like it won't win but does, which i don't believe is doable.)

In my opinion, the arena has a good risk/reward ratio. Say you win 50% vs plat, you get tons of money + a bit more than 1 rare every 4 games. Risk : frustation. Imo, good enough.

Whereas with my suggestion you could have exactly the same rewards without the frustration.

So basicly, reward without risk.

[ElementalDearWatson]

*rephrases* that beats certain kinds of decks. Even 10 out of the 500 is enough (1/50, skipping at 4 secs => 1 every 3 mins 1/2. That's a guaranteeed win vs plat every 6-7 mins, assumin' your deck is slow as znaz)

49 skips would cost you 245 , meaning that using this method at the current rate on Platinum you'd be making 77 every 6-7 minutes if you got an EM and losing at least 84 every 6-7 minutes if you don't.  You'd make more per minute by farming AI3.  You also automatically count yourself out of the possibility of winning an upgraded rare from the special spin.

I don't see why anyone would play this way.  It's certainly not a winning strategy.

Two points to make here :
1) Yes, it means something : not 95%, more like 70% of the leagues are unoriginal. If there was no community behind there'd probably be 95% of unoriginality.

Yet you'd still get exactly the same kudos you get now, plus you'd get a monetary reward.  That's even better, isn't it?

2) Annnd you'd basicly be FORCED not to use some kinds of decks. What if i like submitting ghostmare in arena because it annoys people? (since i do not give a care for  )

Why would you enjoy making other people not enjoy playing the game?  Why would you want to actively drive people away?  If you enjoy annoying people, why aren't you actively campaigning against zanz wanting to remove sources of frustration?

And, if you truly do enjoy annoying people, then I'd say tough.  The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.  If those few people who enjoy actively discouraging others from playing don't get to ruin other people's fun any more and the majority get to enjoy the game more, then I side with those who want to actually enjoy the game.  That's kind of the point of a game, isn't it?

I still see the reverse. Let me devellop.
A) Player who plays can nitpick and basicly choose opponents. Win % increases enormously, so reward increase (base reward x win % = reward)

If you make an interesting deck, people will play it.  If you make a boring, unimaginative deck then, well, whose fault is that?

B) K, reread. So basicly, submit a farm and enjoy free electrum for submitting a losing deck.

A losing deck will drop off the bottom of the leaderboard quickly and won't make much.  You can probably earn more on average from Oracle spins.  Especially now that you automatically win every card spun.

(people won't be playing winning decks, even if they're original. Unless you can make a deck which looks like it won't win but does, which i don't believe is doable.)

Unless people like a challenge, of course.  Or are after rares.  You forget that to get the main reward of playing against the Arena you have to win consecutive rounds.  You come up against a deck in Gold that you think your deck might win against, or might not.  You've already won 2 in a row.  You want a Shard of Wisdom.  What do you do?  Do you really autoquit?

So basicly, reward without risk.

No, reward without frustration.

Again, isn't playing a game supposed to be fun?  If it's not, then don't you think there's a problem?

[DevilLoss]

I'm all for new art and what not but I also like the old art why cant the upgraded versions of the cards be the new art? Or something like that.

[Vineroz]

I'm all for new art and what not but I also like the old art why cant the upgraded versions of the cards be the new art? Or something like that.

However, the current game client file is about 4Mb in size, if I double the amount of art, it would end up being about 7Mb.
Or... I could download the art from the server as the game needs it... but I do not personally like to see a "loading" thingy every time I click on something.

[Cheesy111]

Actually, you'd be helping the people who made oraclebows (comparatively).  Consider:
Person A is playing Gold League Arena.
Person B puts up a monotime ghost/dragon rush. (Card: Ghost of the Past)
Person C puts up a ghostmare. (Card: Ghost of the Past)
Person D puts up an oraclebow.  (Card: Nova)
Person E puts up an oraclebow.  (Card: Skeleton)

Person A is more likely to skip players B, C, and D.

I'd play B and none of the others.  I'm not sure why you think people would skip B and play E.

  Putting up an oraclebow with an 'easy' card like Skeleton, however, is rewarded with more plays than an almost exactly the same oraclebow put up with a generally powerful card such as nova.

Why would it be rewarded?  Why would people be more likely to play what they can see is an Oraclebow if that bow has a skeleton?

Almost all Oraclebows are powered by Supernovae.  Why would having one as the Oracle card make people less likely to play the hand?  Why would people forget they find Oraclebows boring if the Oracle card is a skeleton?

You don't see an entire deck when you play an Arena deck, you only see the top card.  If you can skip decks, you will probably skip decks that 'look' like they're going to be Speedbows or SoSac mono-deaths or Ghsotmares even if they aren't.  Unless you're suggesting we see the opponent's entire deck before the game AND being able to skip decks, which would be completely imbalanced.  We already see mark and one card that they have five of, and that can be a significant advantage sometimes. 

If you are suggesting we see the opponent's entire deck before the game, then you're punishing all sorts of common decks which a player knows can beat theirs (ex. Poison decks skipping all Purify decks), which means that you can avoid all counters to your deck without giving those people any wins/electrum for having a deck that could completely trample yours.  Quite frankly, that's ridiculous.  It also punishes denial, which, while people may not like it because they can't play their cards, is a completely valid archetype and should not be destroyed in Arena just because people don't like having their pillars EQ'd or their quanta BH'd.