Forest Wraith, and other stuff now.

Marquesta

Why are people who are so vastly different in their play level matched up? Maybe that's why more than half the people who love ESO hate this game.
This post started out being about the Forest Wraith card, but since I posted it, and it is still greyed out, I decided to make it about how humiliating it is to play against someone who is exceedingly more proficient at this game than you are. Maybe I don't like it so much after all.

bulbousb16_ESO

Marquesta wrote: »

I decided to make it about how humiliating it is to play against someone who is exceedingly more proficient at this game than you are. Maybe I don't like it so much after all.

How else do you get better if you don't get whomped once in a while? What they're really doing is showing you good strategies.

Sheezabeast

It's more about picking patrons to counter your opponent, honestly. If I'm going against a Druid deck, I pick Celarus to be able to pay to kill agents. Or Hlaalu can give you easy funds to buy up cards like Forest Wraith just to sacrifice them to get them out of the tavern and you get the Points for them.

Necrotech_Master

Sheezabeast wrote: »

It's more about picking patrons to counter your opponent, honestly. If I'm going against a Druid deck, I pick Celarus to be able to pay to kill agents. Or Hlaalu can give you easy funds to buy up cards like Forest Wraith just to sacrifice them to get them out of the tavern and you get the Points for them.

that can also backfire though lol

a lot of the psijic cards are very potent with druid cards

if someone gets out a forest wraith, or one of the agents that gives you coin or prestige when something is discarded, pretty much any psijic "toss" card will trigger those effects, compounding the effectiveness of say the forest wraith

also i would heavily recommend to not use hlaalu patron on something like forest wraith as that is a potent card, as soon as you sacrificed it too, it gets put back in the tavern discard, which can get reshuffled back into the tavern and show up again. you would honestly get far more points just having it on your playing field

Personofsecrets

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

Marquesta wrote: »

I decided to make it about how humiliating it is to play against someone who is exceedingly more proficient at this game than you are. Maybe I don't like it so much after all.

How else do you get better if you don't get whomped once in a while? What they're really doing is showing you good strategies.

It's not necessarily true that people can get better by being beat. If it were always true, then many players would eventually start to give me a run for my money.

I notice such player improvement only a small amount of the time.

People are who they are. Not everyone can change in a meaninful way. Not even if they try.

Necrotech_Master

Personofsecrets wrote: »

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

Marquesta wrote: »

I decided to make it about how humiliating it is to play against someone who is exceedingly more proficient at this game than you are. Maybe I don't like it so much after all.

How else do you get better if you don't get whomped once in a while? What they're really doing is showing you good strategies.

It's not necessarily true that people can get better by being beat. If it were always true, then many players would eventually start to give me a run for my money.

I notice such player improvement only a small amount of the time.

People are who they are. Not everyone can change in a meaninful way. Not even if they try.

i liken learning tribute to mastering combat in this game, its going to be rough and painful and then one day its going to *click* and become significantly easier

like i routinely beat the novice npcs like 50s-(0-10) and i still read a lot about the people who think tribute is "too hard" against the novice npcs

Personofsecrets

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

Personofsecrets wrote: »

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

Marquesta wrote: »

I decided to make it about how humiliating it is to play against someone who is exceedingly more proficient at this game than you are. Maybe I don't like it so much after all.

How else do you get better if you don't get whomped once in a while? What they're really doing is showing you good strategies.

It's not necessarily true that people can get better by being beat. If it were always true, then many players would eventually start to give me a run for my money.

I notice such player improvement only a small amount of the time.

People are who they are. Not everyone can change in a meaninful way. Not even if they try.

i liken learning tribute to mastering combat in this game, its going to be rough and painful and then one day its going to *click* and become significantly easier

like i routinely beat the novice npcs like 50s-(0-10) and i still read a lot about the people who think tribute is "too hard" against the novice npcs

Ultimately, I think the thread maker has a good point. Why shouldn't matchmaking be better at matching people up with equal skills?

My casual win rate is approaching 90% (currently 87.7%)

My competitive win rate is approaching 80% (currently 79.1%)

I think that the answer must be that there aren't the players for this game. The fact that I get regularly several minute ques goes to show this fact a little further.

Everything about TOT is getting frustrating. Can't find games quickly, can't be matched against decent opponent usually, when people do beat me it is usually because of their 1st turn pickup of clearly unbalanced cards, and when I do lose a game I lose a huge number of leaderboard score because the game couldn't matchmake me correctly to begin with.

There are some things that the game does in the background to get players of similar skill facing off against eachother. For example, I believe that players who are Tales of Tribute rank 8 yet are part of their own matchmaking pool even though they share the same ranked ladder as everyone else.

Anyhow, that is sort of a distracting point to the bigger issue that there aren't enough TOT players and no amount of creating vile slop such as the Hermaeus Mora Patron in order to attract players who just want a "fun" game will make up for the general MMO players apathy toward card games or the core card game player, such as myself, issues with the developers design/balance/score choices.

Necrotech_Master

Personofsecrets wrote: »

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

Personofsecrets wrote: »

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

Marquesta wrote: »

I decided to make it about how humiliating it is to play against someone who is exceedingly more proficient at this game than you are. Maybe I don't like it so much after all.

How else do you get better if you don't get whomped once in a while? What they're really doing is showing you good strategies.

It's not necessarily true that people can get better by being beat. If it were always true, then many players would eventually start to give me a run for my money.

I notice such player improvement only a small amount of the time.

People are who they are. Not everyone can change in a meaninful way. Not even if they try.

i liken learning tribute to mastering combat in this game, its going to be rough and painful and then one day its going to *click* and become significantly easier

like i routinely beat the novice npcs like 50s-(0-10) and i still read a lot about the people who think tribute is "too hard" against the novice npcs

Ultimately, I think the thread maker has a good point. Why shouldn't matchmaking be better at matching people up with equal skills?

My casual win rate is approaching 90% (currently 87.7%)

My competitive win rate is approaching 80% (currently 79.1%)

I think that the answer must be that there aren't the players for this game. The fact that I get regularly several minute ques goes to show this fact a little further.

Everything about TOT is getting frustrating. Can't find games quickly, can't be matched against decent opponent usually, when people do beat me it is usually because of their 1st turn pickup of clearly unbalanced cards, and when I do lose a game I lose a huge number of leaderboard score because the game couldn't matchmake me correctly to begin with.

There are some things that the game does in the background to get players of similar skill facing off against eachother. For example, I believe that players who are Tales of Tribute rank 8 yet are part of their own matchmaking pool even though they share the same ranked ladder as everyone else.

Anyhow, that is sort of a distracting point to the bigger issue that there aren't enough TOT players and no amount of creating vile slop such as the Hermaeus Mora Patron in order to attract players who just want a "fun" game will make up for the general MMO players apathy toward card games or the core card game player, such as myself, issues with the developers design/balance/score choices.

for sure if your playing it competitively, i agree with the frustrations

i normally play it against the npcs, it feels more enjoyable, low-stress type of time killer that has decent rewards

bulbousb16_ESO

Personofsecrets wrote: »

It's not necessarily true that people can get better by being beat. If it were always true, then many players would eventually start to give me a run for my money.

A developing player should improve more from a loss than most other factors.

Personofsecrets

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

Personofsecrets wrote: »

It's not necessarily true that people can get better by being beat. If it were always true, then many players would eventually start to give me a run for my money.

A developing player should improve more from a loss than most other factors.

Why should that be the case?

spartaxoxo

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

Personofsecrets wrote: »

It's not necessarily true that people can get better by being beat. If it were always true, then many players would eventually start to give me a run for my money.

A developing player should improve more from a loss than most other factors.

Only to an extent. If you lose to someone and the gap was close, you can often understand exactly what went wrong and use it for the next time. However, if you get destroyed, it can be hard to understand how. Then people start coming up with conspiracies to try and explain it, such as they have rigged RNG against them.

Marquesta

I didn't just get destroyed. I've been playing the game since it came out. I'm not great at it, but I can hold my own against someone at my level.
I got obliterated. 60 something to NOTHING. Zip. lol Maybe it was partly the lay of the cards, which honestly just suck sometimes. Maybe I just really suck a lot worse than I think I do. Maybe the guy/gal was cheating, but I don't like to assume that without actually seeing something that is very suspicious.
So yes, I believe I was completely outclassed by this individual, and YAY for them! They are good at the game! I don't begrudge anyone that.
I would simply like to be paired with people that are closer to my level of play.

Marquesta

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

Personofsecrets wrote: »

It's not necessarily true that people can get better by being beat. If it were always true, then many players would eventually start to give me a run for my money.

A developing player should improve more from a loss than most other factors.

I second the comment you replied to. There is no way I can track what is going on with the cards when the person is playing so fast I can't even tell what went where when. This was the case with this game. The cards were moving so quickly, I couldn't tell what was happening half the time. That's not a learning experience, that is a humiliating experience.

bulbousb16_ESO

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

A developing player should improve more from a loss than most other factors.

Personofsecrets wrote: »

Why should that be the case?

Human nature? People enjoy winning more than they enjoy losing. If they are only playing against people who they win against, then they are satisfied with their situation and not motivated to improve. If they lose, they will be motivated to change that situation.

Necrotech_Master

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

A developing player should improve more from a loss than most other factors.

Personofsecrets wrote: »

Why should that be the case?

Human nature? People enjoy winning more than they enjoy losing. If they are only playing against people who they win against, then they are satisfied with their situation and not motivated to improve. If they lose, they will be motivated to change that situation.

that heavily depends on the person lol

for some, losing is plain frustrating and then they just give it up instead of bothering to mess with it anymore lol

especially if they get a losing game and have no idea how/why they lost

bulbousb16_ESO

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

for some, losing is plain frustrating and then they just give it up instead of bothering to mess with it anymore lol

Exactly. But that's still changing their situation. They can either try to improve, so they win (and not lose) or they walk away (and not lose).

especially if they get a losing game and have no idea how/why they lost

I don't think anyone does not know why they lost. It's not because of the lighting, or the shirt they were wearing, or the weather. It's the cards they played vs. the cards the other guy played. Wanna win? Start playing the same cards that smoked you.

Necrotech_Master

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

for some, losing is plain frustrating and then they just give it up instead of bothering to mess with it anymore lol

Exactly. But that's still changing their situation. They can either try to improve, so they win (and not lose) or they walk away (and not lose).

especially if they get a losing game and have no idea how/why they lost

I don't think anyone does not know why they lost. It's not because of the lighting, or the shirt they were wearing, or the weather. It's the cards they played vs. the cards the other guy played. Wanna win? Start playing the same cards that smoked you.

tribute is not *quite* that simple lol

most people ive seen who complain about losses just say the RNG was rigged against them because 1 of those good cards happened to show up allowing the opponent to buy it, they dont even try to attempt to turn the game around, or understand how to turn the game around and end up conceding (by either "ragequit" or just not further playing any cards)

not everyone is like that for sure, but it sure sounds like a lot of the people who dont like the game (and not because they dont like card games in general)

Personofsecrets

I'll put things this way.

I play games in a very specific way.

If there is a game that would challenge me to play a different way, then I would lose.

Maybe I would still have some understanding and could improve somewhat.

But I could never perform at the level of those who naturally play this different way.

And ultimately I wouldn't want to become better at playing this different way because it isn't who I am as a person.

I want to play my way. If I have to play in a way that I don't like, then there really isn't a reason to proceed.

That's especially the case because there are so many gaming opportunities out there. And I shouldn't have to mention that there are things that I can do with my time that are productive rather than hitting a brick wall over and over.

spartaxoxo

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

for some, losing is plain frustrating and then they just give it up instead of bothering to mess with it anymore lol

Exactly. But that's still changing their situation. They can either try to improve, so they win (and not lose) or they walk away (and not lose).

especially if they get a losing game and have no idea how/why they lost

I don't think anyone does not know why they lost. It's not because of the lighting, or the shirt they were wearing, or the weather. It's the cards they played vs. the cards the other guy played. Wanna win? Start playing the same cards that smoked you.

tribute is not *quite* that simple lol

most people ive seen who complain about losses just say the RNG was rigged against them because 1 of those good cards happened to show up allowing the opponent to buy it, they dont even try to attempt to turn the game around, or understand how to turn the game around and end up conceding (by either "ragequit" or just not further playing any cards)

not everyone is like that for sure, but it sure sounds like a lot of the people who dont like the game (and not because they dont like card games in general)

I've turned a lot of games around tbh. I think it's completely not credible to deny RNG plays a role, but also it's not as much as people think.

Personofsecrets

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

for some, losing is plain frustrating and then they just give it up instead of bothering to mess with it anymore lol

Exactly. But that's still changing their situation. They can either try to improve, so they win (and not lose) or they walk away (and not lose).

especially if they get a losing game and have no idea how/why they lost

I don't think anyone does not know why they lost. It's not because of the lighting, or the shirt they were wearing, or the weather. It's the cards they played vs. the cards the other guy played. Wanna win? Start playing the same cards that smoked you.

tribute is not *quite* that simple lol

most people ive seen who complain about losses just say the RNG was rigged against them because 1 of those good cards happened to show up allowing the opponent to buy it, they dont even try to attempt to turn the game around, or understand how to turn the game around and end up conceding (by either "ragequit" or just not further playing any cards)

not everyone is like that for sure, but it sure sounds like a lot of the people who dont like the game (and not because they dont like card games in general)

I've turned a lot of games around tbh. I think it's completely not credible to deny RNG plays a role, but also it's not as much as people think.

Yes, it's never just one thing or the other.

RNG and Skill compliment and restrict eachother.

For example, a highly skilled player may not need to get so lucky to win, but because of their skill, they will seem to be more lucky because they are able to leverage their skill into just seeing or finding high luck options that players of lower skill literally can't see or find.

The wisdom imparted to me a very long time ago is that LUCK is when preperation meets opportunity. And this sentiment is clearly generational knowledge that we should all learn from and continue to pass down. What is it saying? It's saying that when one works at something and puts themself into the appropriate position, then they can find luck.

Contrary to what alot of people think, everything has components of luck to them. We are part of a deterministic world with imperfect knowledge. Chess is a great example of something that people will say is all skill, but certainly has components of luck.

Watch some games and you'll find out how people are memorizing the highest winning chance moves for the next 30 moves of an opening. Okay, what happens when a player deliberately or not diverges from the common theory? There is of course skill - can someone figure something out live. There is of course luck - maybe they just so happened to study this line as well or maybe they move their pieces well merely on a hunch.

Why did Mikhail Tal have a winning record against Bobby Fischer in classical games but not in rapid games? Some of that may be seen as skill such as their studies and memory. Some of that may be seen as luck such as where they were at such given point in their chess career, their health, and even a playstyle just so happening to counter an opponents.

How much skill and how much luck were involved in these games or involved in general when two master players of anygame are forced to clash?

Well, it's hard to tell. I've done play by plays with other TOT players who have achieved end of season top rank and what we would each chose to do diverges quite a bit. Some plays are obviously. Some players are not. It's hard to know just how much those divergent paths can translate into changes in winning odds.

Understanding all of this leaves me to my soap box about balance. As mentioned, some plays are obvious. You see Prophecy or Grand first turn and you better buy that sick puppy. One place that luck happens is when game effects lend themselves toward winning more than the skills of the player evoking those effects. Service is only done to the players and, more importantly, the game, when such instances are diminished as much as possible. That will often mean having less flashy and wacky effects and that is why I'm doubting the the place of skill being elevated in future content updates of TOT. Hermaeus Mora is going in too much of a different direction compared to other patrons and it makes me sick. But that is probably the point - game designers don't appreciate people like me sweating up their little pet project that is supposed to be fun.

bulbousb16_ESO

Personofsecrets wrote: »

One place that luck happens is when game effects lend themselves toward winning more than the skills of the player evoking those effects. Service is only done to the players and, more importantly, the game, when such instances are diminished as much as possible.

This is not necessarily true. There are good games of pure skill and good games of luck and many good games with a mixture of the two. It's hard to argue that luck isn't a major factor where ToT is concerned. If you can't buy anything with your opening hand, while your opponent has access to a variety of 6-gold cards, you know you're in big trouble regardless of your skill level. Or, every time you buy a card in the opening rounds, you flip over a Crow card for your opponent to snap up. But the beauty of that is that players will lesser skill can succeed. And that is healthy for the game.

Personofsecrets

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

But the beauty of that is that players will lesser skill can succeed. And that is healthy for the game.

Fundamental disagreement for this statement without qualifiers. That is because it is ugly when a lesser skilled player is able to triumph despite their poor play. And healthy? In what way? The theoretical peak of game health is when the best player of any given match is winning every single game due to their ability.

spartaxoxo

One of the biggest appeals to games of chance in general is that everyone has a shot at winning, no matter their skill or investment, if they just get lucky.

Beyond that, n00b tubes are a critical part of the health of any multiplayer online game. You need strategies where a less skilled player can defeat a higher skilled player, or you end with situations like Cyrodiil where it becomes much smaller player pools and much more niche quite quickly. Because if the match outcome is predetermined before it even truly begins, there's no reason for the new player to even bother joining or improving their skills. Players need wins to gain confidence and to understand what works.

bulbousb16_ESO

Personofsecrets wrote: »

And healthy? In what way? The theoretical peak of game health is when the best player of any given match is winning every single game due to their ability.

I think I am beginning to understand the critical flaw in your understanding. You are confusing "game" with "competition", "sport" or "tournament". The game is healthy when people play it, talk about it and enjoy it. The game is not healthy when its growth is stagnant or in decline. This is more likely to happen when the player of higher skill inevitably wins.

As the head of a household, I can tell you what happens when we play games that I always win. We don't play those games anymore. Those games aren't "healthy", they're dead.

Personofsecrets

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

I think I am beginning to understand the critical flaw in your understanding. You are confusing "game" with "competition", "sport" or "tournament". The game is healthy when people play it, talk about it and enjoy it. The game is not healthy when its growth is stagnant or in decline. This is more likely to happen when the player of higher skill inevitably wins.

As the head of a household, I can tell you what happens when we play games that I always win. We don't play those games anymore. Those games aren't "healthy", they're dead.

It's bold to write that there is a flaw in my idea of games, an idea that could at least be based around an objective measure for anyone prescribing to it (winning %), when your idea is both completey subjective and relying on what you do in your personal home.

Not only is winning baked into the concept of games to begin with, TOT also has a competitive leaderboard, so winning play is inherently something that is priviliged within TOT as a design concept. To say that the better players should be the ones winning and that this winning will be measured amongst players is simply the point of the game.

What are the alternatives? That game pieces are made such that they could assist in the better player losing? Hopefully it is obvious why that concept is wrong.

The problem with your household is that you've assumed the game environment is the same as others. Theororetically speaking, if you invited a bunch of people over to your house, then there would be a wider range of skill within the playgoup and maybe then players who normally lose would at least be playing those of their same or lower skill level.

There is glory in the best doing what they do and prevailing over others. Where is the glory when I crush my kids at galactic diplomacy? There isn't any because it is a silly thing to consider. And outside the level of the home where everyone is an adult, this advocacy amounts to burdening the best players by the desires and tendencies of the average. Why should the lowest common denominator dictate life?

And I'll just point out the irony of your household where people aren't having fun unless they are winning some number of games. Don't you think that such dynamic goes to show that even your young ones understand that the point of a game is to win? Furthermore, don't you think that there are some games which your entire family could play with equal skill and have nobody enjoy the experience? I've seen kids bored out of their mind at the chess table while some others have great attention to what's going on. Clearly, what is and isn't fun shouldn't be a burdensome point of design.

Some people find fun in clipping the ends of their noses off. Others like to jump from roof to roof at the top of tall buildings. Some enjoy to make installation art where they are suspended by hooks. And others have the audacity to love losing games. Peoples preferences are wide and strange. It's best to leave aside peoples personal preferences, make something great, cultiavte a community of people that want to be great at the great thing, and then sculpt that all, as needed, into something beautiful.

A few last things. I mentioned that the concept of game pieces being made which can assist in a better player losing are flawed. As it turns out, many heavy handed game developers go out of their way to put their thumb on the scale in this exact way and have said as much. Any designer doing this is bad a their job. I also asked why should the lowest common denominator dictate life? Unfortunate the case that they do dictate life due to many designers having non-ascendant values such as merely making more money.

I'm going to leave things off here. It's true that I genuiniely enjoy discussing the topc. That said, I don't want to risk having a back and forth which is against forum rules. So thank you for taking the time to write to me and feel welcome to say more if you wish.

bulbousb16_ESO

Just bear in mind that ToT is a CARD game. Card games are inherently random, and therefore subject to steaks of luck which can elevate anyone to a win regardless of skill. Superior play can minimize the luck but not completely overcome it. If you are looking for games in which luck is not a factor at all, then card games are not going to be your source.