General thoughts on a ninety percent win rate and the path there.

Personofsecrets

I recently posted a video detailing some of the experiences that I've had over the last 4 months. Especially these last couple of months, I felt like a 90% win rate was possible in the casual category of the game, so I went for it and gradually grew my win rate. Note, because my previous win rate was closer to 86%, my current win rate had to be higher than 90% in order to finally average out at 90%. Indeed, after going back and forth with 10 wins and 1 loss, I finally got around a 30 game win streak . For a while now I've been prefacing my win rate with "almost" 90 and "almost" 80, but I don't need to do that any longer.

August



December



You'll see that my preference for the first year of the game was to play the ranked mode. After having enough demotiviation in the form of a crappy point system, I started playing more casual mode. Additionally, I became tired of the que time required to find a ranked game. Casual games are almost always instant to find.

One observation is that there is a level of toxicity within TOT. One player even began the process of cyber-stalking me after feeling slighted by the idea that I was cheating at TOT. The vast majority of toxic players lose almost all of their games. There are a couple of toxic players who can string together a win here or there, but it's more rare. That's to say that I don't think a toxic mindset lends itself to people performing better. Some of these players in question don't even understand some very basic game concepts.

There is also a more latent form of toxicity, a grumpiness or maybe pettiness of sorts from the players who I think are at their core well meaning. And I empathize with them. You can tell that someone is getting ornery when they start to do things like choosing Sorcer-King or Mora. From their perspective, they just want to get it over with and maybe they will get luck on their side. Unfortunately for them, I seem to be getting better at combating cheap and dirty power generating strategies. Again, I empathize with them. They really shouldn't be having to play against someone who is winning almost all of their games.

It's just like how I shouldn't have to play against people who give zero points in the ranked game mode. It's a waste of time.

My primary goal isn't to make these comparisons, but when toxic gameplay shows up, yea, there is often a design choice that is behind that toxic thing happening. I'm not sure if the designers of TOT fully grasp the weight of cause and effect. And I don't either. But in this case, it's very easy to see how a poorly designed system leads to downstream effects which impact their core casual player base in a way that makes the game less enjoyable for them. I guess that the designers don't mind the casual players having the experiences these past four months that they've been subject to.

There are certainly some players who enjoy the challenge when matched against me, but I think that enjoyment wears thin and it isn't the feeling that most casual players have.

With my play data, I think that the position of the game being all about luck is indefensible. Luck can be a large part of games because there are some game scenarios where a player can be highly advantaged with few to no counterplay options. Anyone complaining about luck though should first have proof of a high win rate. Luck will be more of a factor in games where two highly and equally skilled players are searching for small advantages that transform into staggering ones. So until someone is at that point, they mostly have room to improve.

And people may wonder how to improve. Well, it's about heuristics. We have popularized AI now so I can use that example too. You need to use your experiences to inform your future play. If you do something like not buy a Grand Larceny first turn and then the opponent crushes you with the easy gold generation, then that is a moment for learning. A heuristic is a way of knowing. You need to develop the way of knowing what to do in different situations that works for you. My heuristics are to value certain types of play and I make most of my decisions to bolster that type of play. Maybe not everyone can think like this, but give it a try if you are struggling. And no, almost no games are as simple as "win condition is to get more power, so I will win games by making power!" That is a bad logic trap that holds so many people back.

spartaxoxo

Congratulations. I know that win rate is well earned.

And I think part of the issue is the matchmaking and the way ranked gameplay works. It's dissuaded a lot of people that really ought to be in ranked from using that mode, myself included. So, you'll get new or mid players in a match against very good players who don't know what they're looking at and chalk up their losses to RNG.

tsaescishoeshiner

Could you clarify what you mean by toxic players, and the different behaviors that are toxic? When reading your post, I wasn't sure how picking certain patrons counts as toxic, but don't want to miss your meaning.

I understand how toxic counts as people sending rude messages or "roping" (timing out their turns to make you wait), but now I'm less confident I understand how you're using the term if picking Mora or Orgnum would count

Personofsecrets

tsaescishoeshiner wrote: »

Could you clarify what you mean by toxic players, and the different behaviors that are toxic? When reading your post, I wasn't sure how picking certain patrons counts as toxic, but don't want to miss your meaning.

I understand how toxic counts as people sending rude messages or "roping" (timing out their turns to make you wait), but now I'm less confident I understand how you're using the term if picking Mora or Orgnum would count

Sure, I talk more about the toxicity that becomes baked into Patron picking at the below thread.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/648279/the-latent-toxicity-of-the-power-generating-starter-cards

Well, because I am second player in this scenario. When I see that the opponent has picked a patron that gives a power generating starter card to the starting card pool, then I am strategically inclined to pick Rajhiin for the chances of getting Pounce and Profit/Grand Larceny or going Almalexia because it doesn't do much insane for player one and it gives player 2 numerous options regardless if a power generating starter card is poluting the opening hand or not.

So why is it that that there is a need for Mora? Why does my opponent and myself do this macabre dance of picking patrons that the other person doesn't want to use.

Both my opponent and I have incentives to try and utilize toxic game play like fast and dirty aggressive strategies or Rajhiin spam backed up by an early Pounce/Grand because of how TOT is designed.

Game A: When the opponent that I have in mind goes first, then they choose Red Eagle or Mora, and I have the incentive to go Rajhiin/Almalexia because of the options that are good for second player.

Game B: When I go first, against this same opponent, a different type of game play often happens. I go Psijics and the opponent doesn't opt for red eagle and mora combo, and then I don't feel comfortable picking Rajhiin.

In game A, everyone is miserable. In game B, I can at least say that I'm not miserable and I doubt that the opponent is as unhappy as they could be because they don't have to play with the combination of me picking Rajhiin and Almalexia, a combination that they have expressed that they don't like.

And I have some other thoughts to provide you.

As pointed out, some of the toxicity is really bad. It is the type that you mention regarding rude messages and waiting out the timer. One message was so bad, that I decided to not post my recent video here as I believed that I could risk moderation by sharing what another player said to me.

But I will touch on the point of game play being toxic again. Not all ways of playing games are equal. And when players do things like make choices that are particularly aggravating to others, then yes that is a form of toxicity even if the game designers have put it out there as an option.

It's no coincidence that I've found players who are getting agitated with losing start to do things like pick Sorcerer-King or spam Rajhiin. Human action is complicated, but are they lashing out in a sense? Absolutely, and that's toxic.

And I could be better myself. I have several games, for example, where I have confined all of the opponents cards and given them just bewilderment to play with. Such lines of play are easy for me to come up with when the options have presented themselves in the right order. There is a special satisfaction in overcoming and defeating a strategy, let's say Midnight Raid rushing, with tools such as confine. It's a type of schadenfreude. It's a lashing out at the game system.

As I hint at in the original post, me playing so much in the casual category of the game is a type of toxicity in and of itself because I am removing the ability of a bunch of players to win and their time as wasted. It's similar to the toxicity that I feel when being rewarded zero points for a really hard fought game. And I had another game last night where I lost to some really goofy play that shouldn't be allowed in the game and what do I find out? That the opponent was of particular lesser skill than me as decided by the games record keeping systems, so I lost 150 points for that game. Again, that's toxic and I get the incentives to not waste my time and energy with getting ranking points.

Again, because I think that this is an important point, just because the game designers allow some specific type of game play, doesn't mean that those utilizing the game play are doing so amorally. Utilizing game pieces can be healthy or toxic depending on the larger contexts.

SeaGtGruff

Congratulations! You might be one of the players who severely beat me in Casual and Ranked, but if so, that was a long time ago, because I haven't played any PvP matches since I briefly flirted with those for about a week shortly after ToT was first introduced. I keep telling myself that I'll try another PvP match sometime, but I never seem to find the heart for it. I don't even care about my overall ranking or how many points I win or lose from each match; it was just the trauma of repeatedly getting beaten to a pulp that drove me away from PvP matches. "Just let me win one match so I can turn in the daily!"

I agree with what you've said about luck and learning from ones mistakes and losses. I would add that keeping a calm state of mind is also important. From reading some of the posts in the ToT forum, it sounds like a lot of players start falling into the trap of panic and negativity as soon as their opponent picks their patrons, even before the decks have been shuffled together and the cards for the first turn have been dealt out. Speaking from personal experience, I find that falling into a state of panic or negativity simply causes me to start making poor decisions, even if I actually know better about the probable outcomes from my past experiences, because I either start grasping at straws in a panic, or start pinning all of my hopes on getting some super-duper magical RNG that's heavily in my favor. I always try to keep a cool, level head when playing the NPCs, but if things don't go well and I lose multiple matches in a row, then I start to get irritated and can end up making one bad choice after another. Fortunately, I seldom lose to the NPCs, and if I do lose then I rarely lose more than one or two matches in a row. But I can well imagine how other players might get super grumpy after losing many PvP matches in a row, and all that does is make one more inclined to start making bad mistakes and then make worse and worse mistakes, like a snowball effect.

Largomets

Hey Thornos, you and I have talked about this a lot and I agree. I will say, my perspective on issues with the RNG balance are largely tainted by playing mostly ranked with a high percentage of the community being very advanced, at which point RNG DOES become a larger factor.

I think there are always things to learnt to mitigate the RNG. Personally, I still despite Mora and Druid decks as the worst offenders for RNG spam. A single random hand in the tavern with those decks and be an avalanche for the rest of the game based all on luck, but I bring that perspective as someone who plays mostly all ranked, where that IS largely true. I think you correctly identified that it is true in ranked moreso because 2 equally skilled players who really know the game, are really looking for that slight edge to turn the game permanently in their favor, and Mora and Druid provide that advantage in significantly larger quantities (and more easily) than any other deck.

I find it interesting that if you pole most of the community about what the RNG decks are, they'd tell you the worst are crow and orgnum. I rarely lose against those decks anymore, even if I get "bad" rng. In fact, one of my new games I play with myself is seeing if I can avoid buying crow cards and let my opponent have a good number and I still win, which happens a lot thanks to my playstyle and deck choices.

I think part of the "luck" accusations come from players that learn "the way" to play a particular deck, then tunnel vision on it. They want to pick crow and buy every purple card and hope they get them all and their opponent gets none. They want to pick orgnum and hope that they get a single power generating card and then spam the dial hoping to just slightly win based on a coin toss. They are therefor COMPLETELY sidelined when a skilled player shows up, doesn't tunnel vision the parlor trick, and uses counter measures to mitigate the RNG (psijic and rahjin is an amazing anti-crow deck, and if you have enough deck cycle control with scrying or alma, you can really change the dynamic of a game even against an opponent getting all the "good" cards).

I also find that most players, even supposedly "good" players, buy WAY too many cards. They see a "good" card on the tavern and MUST buy it. Because if they don't their opponent will! They end up poisoning their decks with too many "good" cards, and then getting combos and strategy becomes much harder. I notice the best players in the community, and the ones I respect the most, avoid mora and druid, and are calculated about what cards they get, prioritizing smaller decks whenever possible.

But all this is to say, these levels of intricacies take a lot of dedication to discover, so it's not balanced well for casual players. But, to your point, why in the hell would I continue playing ranked games when I get 0 to 10 points for a win, and lose 150 points for a loss? The higher you go, the less reason there is to play unless you're hoping to take literal first place for the vanity, or totally just don't care about the score at all (I've had several seasons where I don't care at all, and been has high as the top 3 only to keep playing and fall down just because I like playing better games).

It also really does add an element of toxicity to the RNG decks. Like your example of Mora + Orgnum, where it really will be more of an RNG farm than most combos (the other big RNG farm combo being Druid and Psijic). When you have nothing to gain and everything to lose, pairing with a cheap player that picks an RNG spam deck like mora or druid is completely demoralizing. Best case, you get lucky and win nothing, worse case you lose based on RNG and lose a ton. It really is a broken system honestly.

What addon are you using to track your ratios by the way?

Personofsecrets

Largomets wrote: »

Hey Thornos, you and I have talked about this a lot and I agree. I will say, my perspective on issues with the RNG balance are largely tainted by playing mostly ranked with a high percentage of the community being very advanced, at which point RNG DOES become a larger factor.

I think there are always things to learnt to mitigate the RNG. Personally, I still despite Mora and Druid decks as the worst offenders for RNG spam. A single random hand in the tavern with those decks and be an avalanche for the rest of the game based all on luck, but I bring that perspective as someone who plays mostly all ranked, where that IS largely true. I think you correctly identified that it is true in ranked moreso because 2 equally skilled players who really know the game, are really looking for that slight edge to turn the game permanently in their favor, and Mora and Druid provide that advantage in significantly larger quantities (and more easily) than any other deck.

I find it interesting that if you pole most of the community about what the RNG decks are, they'd tell you the worst are crow and orgnum. I rarely lose against those decks anymore, even if I get "bad" rng. In fact, one of my new games I play with myself is seeing if I can avoid buying crow cards and let my opponent have a good number and I still win, which happens a lot thanks to my playstyle and deck choices.

I think part of the "luck" accusations come from players that learn "the way" to play a particular deck, then tunnel vision on it. They want to pick crow and buy every purple card and hope they get them all and their opponent gets none. They want to pick orgnum and hope that they get a single power generating card and then spam the dial hoping to just slightly win based on a coin toss. They are therefor COMPLETELY sidelined when a skilled player shows up, doesn't tunnel vision the parlor trick, and uses counter measures to mitigate the RNG (psijic and rahjin is an amazing anti-crow deck, and if you have enough deck cycle control with scrying or alma, you can really change the dynamic of a game even against an opponent getting all the "good" cards).

I also find that most players, even supposedly "good" players, buy WAY too many cards. They see a "good" card on the tavern and MUST buy it. Because if they don't their opponent will! They end up poisoning their decks with too many "good" cards, and then getting combos and strategy becomes much harder. I notice the best players in the community, and the ones I respect the most, avoid mora and druid, and are calculated about what cards they get, prioritizing smaller decks whenever possible.

But all this is to say, these levels of intricacies take a lot of dedication to discover, so it's not balanced well for casual players. But, to your point, why in the hell would I continue playing ranked games when I get 0 to 10 points for a win, and lose 150 points for a loss? The higher you go, the less reason there is to play unless you're hoping to take literal first place for the vanity, or totally just don't care about the score at all (I've had several seasons where I don't care at all, and been has high as the top 3 only to keep playing and fall down just because I like playing better games).

It also really does add an element of toxicity to the RNG decks. Like your example of Mora + Orgnum, where it really will be more of an RNG farm than most combos (the other big RNG farm combo being Druid and Psijic). When you have nothing to gain and everything to lose, pairing with a cheap player that picks an RNG spam deck like mora or druid is completely demoralizing. Best case, you get lucky and win nothing, worse case you lose based on RNG and lose a ton. It really is a broken system honestly.

What addon are you using to track your ratios by the way?

The interplay between luck and skill is complicated and thus often oversimplified. It's also the case that some players can sometimes play really well or really poorly. Is that another factor of luck if the usually poor player decides to make every right choice in a game? Again, it's complicated.

And I often test the limits of games too by not going for the obvious choice and trying to combat it. Sometimes it turns out that something such as luxury exports plus writ is much better than a crow card. It's hard to learn that without trying.

For the addon, try Exo-Y tribute enhancements. Though I recommend that the first thing you do with it is turn off auto-accept for games.

Largomets

I agree with this, and was trying to make the distinction between "actual luck" and "perceived luck" based on skill level. The point being, in casual matches, "luck" is actually much less at play because of the much wider ability level. Let me give a few examples of what I'm talking about from 2 ranked matches.

Example 1: In a game I was playing against one of the best players, we were both building fairly strategic and thoughtful decks. He had the upper hand most of the game, but not enough to box me out. I got myself positioned to probably win on the next turn with him trailing. By luck, he got a tithe card in the tavern. Hlaalu was in play, and he used the tithe to sacrifice 2 of his best cards to push a win check (barely), and ultimately won the game 40 to 39. This to me is an example of "luck" in the end game. It's not "oh he got better cards than me," it's "he got exactly the card he needed to clutch it, and was a good enough player to capitalize on that opportunity." There's nothing wrong with this, and this is an example of balanced RNG in a card game, as all card games will have some modicum of RNG.

Example 2: Someone picked mora (not me, I refuse to unlock it or druid since they're garbage decks). I was trailing 44 to 65 and I was surely about to lose. I did however have a good hand for currency, and by complete dumb luck, I got one of the wildest RNG farms of contract cards I've ever seen and went from 44 points to 81 points in a single hand using almost exclusively mora contract cards and draw cards. This to me, is "just dumb luck," and poor game design. Even the most novice player can put 2 and 2 together that they should combo all the contract cards, and absolutely no skill or thought went into that. This is a classic example of terrible game design and could not be more opposite from the example above. Sure, I won that game, but it was only a coin toss, as most Mora games are.

These are examples of "luck" in the competitive landscape, but one of them is "well balanced luck" where a skilled player capitalizes on modest RNG, while the other is just stupidly dumb luck thanks to terrible game design. This is also why I consider Druid and Mora to be terrible decks. All other things being equal, skilled players will be able to play defensively and strategically even when trailing to potentially turn things around. Things like crow chains and organum spam have many counter moves these days and all the top players know them. Druid and Mora however are decks that snowball off themselves, so good RNG on a single hand can give you a runaway to becoming unstoppable on a single turn using luck alone, whereas most other "RNG" decks have a buildup process that give their opponent time to deploy counter measures to mitigate the luck.

But going back to casual games, example 1 would almost certainly not happen in casual unless it was 2 ranked players who both picked casual for a break. The overwhelming majority of the community would never think to sacrifice their best cards and instead would have either skipped the tithe all together, or used it to do a "more normal" play and then likely lost. Example 2 on the other hand would be an example of "pure luck" no matter the players. Only someone completely and utterly unfamiliar with the game would have missed that opportunity, and those players are likely playing NPCs anyhow.

When you scale this out, I think it explains your stats. For more than half your games, you're likely only playing with non-RNG farm combos, meaning skill is a very strong factor, and RNG can be mitigated. In the games where we are playing with coin-toss combos/decks, you stand a roughly 50/50 chance of winning, possibly more because you are advanced. So averaging those numbers out, an 80% win ratio in ranked makes a ton of sense as does a 90% ratio in casual. The times you are in a situation where simple dumb luck boxes you out and can't be recovered are minimal.

For the average player though, they have fewer strategies in mind, so they really only know "the one trick" for a particular context, and are lost if they don't get to use it. If their opponent does, they simply think "damn, they got all the RNG and I got none." This is why a lot of them bitterly give up and steer into RNG farm skids. "Hey, if it's all luck, lets yolo it and hopefully I'll win."

Personofsecrets

Largomets wrote: »

I agree with this, and was trying to make the distinction between "actual luck" and "perceived luck" based on skill level. The point being, in casual matches, "luck" is actually much less at play because of the much wider ability level. Let me give a few examples of what I'm talking about from 2 ranked matches.

Example 1: In a game I was playing against one of the best players, we were both building fairly strategic and thoughtful decks. He had the upper hand most of the game, but not enough to box me out. I got myself positioned to probably win on the next turn with him trailing. By luck, he got a tithe card in the tavern. Hlaalu was in play, and he used the tithe to sacrifice 2 of his best cards to push a win check (barely), and ultimately won the game 40 to 39. This to me is an example of "luck" in the end game. It's not "oh he got better cards than me," it's "he got exactly the card he needed to clutch it, and was a good enough player to capitalize on that opportunity." There's nothing wrong with this, and this is an example of balanced RNG in a card game, as all card games will have some modicum of RNG.

Example 2: Someone picked mora (not me, I refuse to unlock it or druid since they're garbage decks). I was trailing 44 to 65 and I was surely about to lose. I did however have a good hand for currency, and by complete dumb luck, I got one of the wildest RNG farms of contract cards I've ever seen and went from 44 points to 81 points in a single hand using almost exclusively mora contract cards and draw cards. This to me, is "just dumb luck," and poor game design. Even the most novice player can put 2 and 2 together that they should combo all the contract cards, and absolutely no skill or thought went into that. This is a classic example of terrible game design and could not be more opposite from the example above. Sure, I won that game, but it was only a coin toss, as most Mora games are.

These are examples of "luck" in the competitive landscape, but one of them is "well balanced luck" where a skilled player capitalizes on modest RNG, while the other is just stupidly dumb luck thanks to terrible game design. This is also why I consider Druid and Mora to be terrible decks. All other things being equal, skilled players will be able to play defensively and strategically even when trailing to potentially turn things around. Things like crow chains and organum spam have many counter moves these days and all the top players know them. Druid and Mora however are decks that snowball off themselves, so good RNG on a single hand can give you a runaway to becoming unstoppable on a single turn using luck alone, whereas most other "RNG" decks have a buildup process that give their opponent time to deploy counter measures to mitigate the luck.

But going back to casual games, example 1 would almost certainly not happen in casual unless it was 2 ranked players who both picked casual for a break. The overwhelming majority of the community would never think to sacrifice their best cards and instead would have either skipped the tithe all together, or used it to do a "more normal" play and then likely lost. Example 2 on the other hand would be an example of "pure luck" no matter the players. Only someone completely and utterly unfamiliar with the game would have missed that opportunity, and those players are likely playing NPCs anyhow.

When you scale this out, I think it explains your stats. For more than half your games, you're likely only playing with non-RNG farm combos, meaning skill is a very strong factor, and RNG can be mitigated. In the games where we are playing with coin-toss combos/decks, you stand a roughly 50/50 chance of winning, possibly more because you are advanced. So averaging those numbers out, an 80% win ratio in ranked makes a ton of sense as does a 90% ratio in casual. The times you are in a situation where simple dumb luck boxes you out and can't be recovered are minimal.

For the average player though, they have fewer strategies in mind, so they really only know "the one trick" for a particular context, and are lost if they don't get to use it. If their opponent does, they simply think "damn, they got all the RNG and I got none." This is why a lot of them bitterly give up and steer into RNG farm skids. "Hey, if it's all luck, lets yolo it and hopefully I'll win."

Yes, the examples you give are relevant. At a certain point, one can view the undrawn tavern cards and start to reasonably incorporate them into their strategies, but, especially with Mora cards popping up in sequence, there can be large dumb luck factor involved. And although the Mora contracts are of particularly poor design, I really don't care for tithe all that much too.

It sort of reminds me of Hearthstone where a tithe play can't reasonable be expected to have to be played around/overcome. And in some of those cases, here comes the random tithe win... Oh well - it's a minor problem compared to other balance problems.

And I definitely temper my attitude when it comes to win rate. I appreciate the congratulations here. I also keep in mind though that a number of players literally can't win because of the habits that they have. So I've reached a minor accomplishment that I think is good for serving the purpose of showing designers the kind of environment that they are encouraging.

JHartEllis

Congrats on the amazing win rate!

I do feel like the leaderboard could use some tweaks early on when nobody has points to win or lose--the first two-or-so weeks of the season are really funky with lots of 0-score wins, which saps a lot of enjoyment out of it. I'd really like to see this hammered out as a good system, both for ToT's sake and as a potential model for any future 1v1 content.

Largomets

JHartEllis wrote: »

Congrats on the amazing win rate!

I do feel like the leaderboard could use some tweaks early on when nobody has points to win or lose--the first two-or-so weeks of the season are really funky with lots of 0-score wins, which saps a lot of enjoyment out of it. I'd really like to see this hammered out as a good system, both for ToT's sake and as a potential model for any future 1v1 content.

100%. No "win" should EVER net you zero reward. Ever. In anything. The competitive aspect of ToT is a dying community, with smaller numbers participating every season. I believe further RNG balances, not-so-putative scoring, and the option of a "ban deck" round where each player picks a deck to ban before seeding would go a LONG way to getting more people into it. Right now, you lose SO MUCH for a loss, gain very little for a win, and need to be extra sweaty to overcome perceived RNG imbalances, so any newer players get scared off and the vets are hemorrhaging out as they get burnt out.

Personofsecrets

JHartEllis wrote: »

Congrats on the amazing win rate!

I do feel like the leaderboard could use some tweaks early on when nobody has points to win or lose--the first two-or-so weeks of the season are really funky with lots of 0-score wins, which saps a lot of enjoyment out of it. I'd really like to see this hammered out as a good system, both for ToT's sake and as a potential model for any future 1v1 content.

Thanks and thank you for going easy on me at the end of last season.

AnduinTryggva

Personofsecrets wrote: »

I recently posted a video detailing some of the experiences that I've had over the last 4 months. Especially these last couple of months, I felt like a 90% win rate was possible in the casual category of the game, so I went for it and gradually grew my win rate. Note, because my previous win rate was closer to 86%, my current win rate had to be higher than 90% in order to finally average out at 90%. Indeed, after going back and forth with 10 wins and 1 loss, I finally got around a 30 game win streak . For a while now I've been prefacing my win rate with "almost" 90 and "almost" 80, but I don't need to do that any longer.

August



December



You'll see that my preference for the first year of the game was to play the ranked mode. After having enough demotiviation in the form of a crappy point system, I started playing more casual mode. Additionally, I became tired of the que time required to find a ranked game. Casual games are almost always instant to find.

One observation is that there is a level of toxicity within TOT. One player even began the process of cyber-stalking me after feeling slighted by the idea that I was cheating at TOT. The vast majority of toxic players lose almost all of their games. There are a couple of toxic players who can string together a win here or there, but it's more rare. That's to say that I don't think a toxic mindset lends itself to people performing better. Some of these players in question don't even understand some very basic game concepts.

There is also a more latent form of toxicity, a grumpiness or maybe pettiness of sorts from the players who I think are at their core well meaning. And I empathize with them. You can tell that someone is getting ornery when they start to do things like choosing Sorcer-King or Mora. From their perspective, they just want to get it over with and maybe they will get luck on their side. Unfortunately for them, I seem to be getting better at combating cheap and dirty power generating strategies. Again, I empathize with them. They really shouldn't be having to play against someone who is winning almost all of their games.

It's just like how I shouldn't have to play against people who give zero points in the ranked game mode. It's a waste of time.

My primary goal isn't to make these comparisons, but when toxic gameplay shows up, yea, there is often a design choice that is behind that toxic thing happening. I'm not sure if the designers of TOT fully grasp the weight of cause and effect. And I don't either. But in this case, it's very easy to see how a poorly designed system leads to downstream effects which impact their core casual player base in a way that makes the game less enjoyable for them. I guess that the designers don't mind the casual players having the experiences these past four months that they've been subject to.

There are certainly some players who enjoy the challenge when matched against me, but I think that enjoyment wears thin and it isn't the feeling that most casual players have.

With my play data, I think that the position of the game being all about luck is indefensible. Luck can be a large part of games because there are some game scenarios where a player can be highly advantaged with few to no counterplay options. Anyone complaining about luck though should first have proof of a high win rate. Luck will be more of a factor in games where two highly and equally skilled players are searching for small advantages that transform into staggering ones. So until someone is at that point, they mostly have room to improve.

And people may wonder how to improve. Well, it's about heuristics. We have popularized AI now so I can use that example too. You need to use your experiences to inform your future play. If you do something like not buy a Grand Larceny first turn and then the opponent crushes you with the easy gold generation, then that is a moment for learning. A heuristic is a way of knowing. You need to develop the way of knowing what to do in different situations that works for you. My heuristics are to value certain types of play and I make most of my decisions to bolster that type of play. Maybe not everyone can think like this, but give it a try if you are struggling. And no, almost no games are as simple as "win condition is to get more power, so I will win games by making power!" That is a bad logic trap that holds so many people back.

While it is of course true what you write (boiled down basically to: "you just have to buy and play the right cards" XD) it will NOT help average players. Because while all players with a large experience have - in principle - a huge database to extract their heuristics from it, few have the eidetic memory to remember each of it to draw the right data from it. Of course they could make a data analysis and use some tools and make a science out of it.

Now if we come to equally skilled players as you suggest is where it boils down to luck: I think this is where a lot of people get if they play consistently. And that's the major complaint against ToT: That as soon as you basically have your heuristics done to the level that you can reach (as a human being and not as a computer) it leaves ToT as what it is: a random number driven card game. And one where early luck is very important.

Personofsecrets

AnduinTryggva wrote: »

Personofsecrets wrote: »

I recently posted a video detailing some of the experiences that I've had over the last 4 months. Especially these last couple of months, I felt like a 90% win rate was possible in the casual category of the game, so I went for it and gradually grew my win rate. Note, because my previous win rate was closer to 86%, my current win rate had to be higher than 90% in order to finally average out at 90%. Indeed, after going back and forth with 10 wins and 1 loss, I finally got around a 30 game win streak . For a while now I've been prefacing my win rate with "almost" 90 and "almost" 80, but I don't need to do that any longer.

August



December



You'll see that my preference for the first year of the game was to play the ranked mode. After having enough demotiviation in the form of a crappy point system, I started playing more casual mode. Additionally, I became tired of the que time required to find a ranked game. Casual games are almost always instant to find.

One observation is that there is a level of toxicity within TOT. One player even began the process of cyber-stalking me after feeling slighted by the idea that I was cheating at TOT. The vast majority of toxic players lose almost all of their games. There are a couple of toxic players who can string together a win here or there, but it's more rare. That's to say that I don't think a toxic mindset lends itself to people performing better. Some of these players in question don't even understand some very basic game concepts.

There is also a more latent form of toxicity, a grumpiness or maybe pettiness of sorts from the players who I think are at their core well meaning. And I empathize with them. You can tell that someone is getting ornery when they start to do things like choosing Sorcer-King or Mora. From their perspective, they just want to get it over with and maybe they will get luck on their side. Unfortunately for them, I seem to be getting better at combating cheap and dirty power generating strategies. Again, I empathize with them. They really shouldn't be having to play against someone who is winning almost all of their games.

It's just like how I shouldn't have to play against people who give zero points in the ranked game mode. It's a waste of time.

My primary goal isn't to make these comparisons, but when toxic gameplay shows up, yea, there is often a design choice that is behind that toxic thing happening. I'm not sure if the designers of TOT fully grasp the weight of cause and effect. And I don't either. But in this case, it's very easy to see how a poorly designed system leads to downstream effects which impact their core casual player base in a way that makes the game less enjoyable for them. I guess that the designers don't mind the casual players having the experiences these past four months that they've been subject to.

There are certainly some players who enjoy the challenge when matched against me, but I think that enjoyment wears thin and it isn't the feeling that most casual players have.

With my play data, I think that the position of the game being all about luck is indefensible. Luck can be a large part of games because there are some game scenarios where a player can be highly advantaged with few to no counterplay options. Anyone complaining about luck though should first have proof of a high win rate. Luck will be more of a factor in games where two highly and equally skilled players are searching for small advantages that transform into staggering ones. So until someone is at that point, they mostly have room to improve.

And people may wonder how to improve. Well, it's about heuristics. We have popularized AI now so I can use that example too. You need to use your experiences to inform your future play. If you do something like not buy a Grand Larceny first turn and then the opponent crushes you with the easy gold generation, then that is a moment for learning. A heuristic is a way of knowing. You need to develop the way of knowing what to do in different situations that works for you. My heuristics are to value certain types of play and I make most of my decisions to bolster that type of play. Maybe not everyone can think like this, but give it a try if you are struggling. And no, almost no games are as simple as "win condition is to get more power, so I will win games by making power!" That is a bad logic trap that holds so many people back.

While it is of course true what you write (boiled down basically to: "you just have to buy and play the right cards" XD) it will NOT help average players. Because while all players with a large experience have - in principle - a huge database to extract their heuristics from it, few have the eidetic memory to remember each of it to draw the right data from it. Of course they could make a data analysis and use some tools and make a science out of it.

Now if we come to equally skilled players as you suggest is where it boils down to luck: I think this is where a lot of people get if they play consistently. And that's the major complaint against ToT: That as soon as you basically have your heuristics done to the level that you can reach (as a human being and not as a computer) it leaves ToT as what it is: a random number driven card game. And one where early luck is very important.

A couple of things that I will add is that the point of heuristics is to not have to have a memory and take time recalling. For example, I've ran out the timer a few times unecessarily by thinking too long. I now have that heauristic to go off of and I therefore don't have to think that hard when I know that I have a combo turn. It's a matter of start playing cards immediately or lose value. Maybe I misplay because the decisions are being made more quickly, but it's better to do that in most cases than to bungle part of a turn to the turn timer.

I do remember games for sometimes a few days, sometimes a couple weeks, or sometimes longer if I really dwell on them and keep recalling them. But I don't think that I really need that. Afterall, I came to TOT already with pre-loaded heuristics regarding how to play a game in general.

One thing that I will say about equally skilled players is that I don't know how many equally skilled players there really are. Different players are good in different ways. I was playing some games with Pink Apple who was basically owning the leaderboard during the earlier days of the game. I saw into the future different lines of play that they didn't see. As a matter of fact, some of those lines were just plainly obvious to me. That said, they saw the things they saw as a different type of strong TOT player. I can't even necesarrily say that they are wrong and maybe I am wrong. There isn't really a way to measure who is best and has come up with the best way to play because of how awful the ranking system is.

This is all to say that different personalities and prior experiences lend themselves to differeing heuristical usage, differing focus, and diverging styles. So it's hard to ever say if two players are equally skilled and I think that is especially in a small game like TOT without a huge pool of dedicated players to look at.

Every single play, I am motivated to find the move that creates the most theoroetical value for extraction. This is my strength and my wekaness. I cannot change who I am and although I give some basice suggestion in the OP, I think that people are who they are. If someone hasn't developed a successful way of playing TOT, it may be because they can't due to who they are and their circumstances.

AnduinTryggva

I understand all this what you say. And this is basically what all decently good players will do. You learn from your mistakes and from the mistakes of your opponents and from what both sides did well and which works for them.

Please don't take offence it is not meant as such. But to be honest I think what you say does not help players to emulate your win rate. It - as far as I understand it - just states that you have to know the game and its mechanic well to win matches. Which is, to be honest, quite an obvious thing. At least I don't know how I could emulate it from what you write. I also don't know how you got your win rate and under which conditions it has been achieved and wheter it could be reproduced any time anywhere on any server at any time (for instance there are time slots a day where I lose more often than during other time slots indicating to me that the sample of players changes over day time). I won't say that you would not be able to reproduce it anytime. I simply don't know. You know surely better. Maybe you have an heuristics that works optimally. From your post it is however impossible to deduce it. So I wonder how your post could help others.

Personofsecrets

AnduinTryggva wrote: »

I understand all this what you say. And this is basically what all decently good players will do. You learn from your mistakes and from the mistakes of your opponents and from what both sides did well and which works for them.

Please don't take offence it is not meant as such. But to be honest I think what you say does not help players to emulate your win rate. It - as far as I understand it - just states that you have to know the game and its mechanic well to win matches. Which is, to be honest, quite an obvious thing. At least I don't know how I could emulate it from what you write. I also don't know how you got your win rate and under which conditions it has been achieved and wheter it could be reproduced any time anywhere on any server at any time (for instance there are time slots a day where I lose more often than during other time slots indicating to me that the sample of players changes over day time). I won't say that you would not be able to reproduce it anytime. I simply don't know. You know surely better. Maybe you have an heuristics that works optimally. From your post it is however impossible to deduce it. So I wonder how your post could help others.

Yes, that idea is eluded to in my comments. A number of people have debated the idea with me over the years, but I'm really not sure if it's possible for people to improve past what their natural endowments allow. Perhaps anyone can maybe copy some simple tips and tricks up to a certain point, but they will have a hard time making novel approaches to unusual game states or follow the deeper principles upon which the heuristics which they are mearly copying were built upon.

I could reproduce the win rate on NA since I continue to go up in win rate past 90%. Getting to 90% was itself me digging myself out of a trough.

This is part me journaling my experience and part me making a jab at the game systems. That said, I rarely see the idea of a "way of knowing" written out. So if my mention of it is a key to someones mental lock, then that's perfectly good and dandy.

SeaGtGruff

Largomets wrote: »

The competitive aspect of ToT is a dying community, with smaller numbers participating every season.

I stopped playing against other players after just one week IIRC. That was shortly after ToT's introduction, so the endeavor to complete a ToT match hadn't been added yet. I'm not much interested in rankings, so the number of points I gained or lost in a match wasn't a concern for me. But I was primarily playing matches for the ToT daily, so my decision to give up on matches was due to how long it was taking me to win a single match-- not even 3, just 1 single match-- so I could go turn in the daily. The amount of time involved was eating into far too much of my playtime. Now that there's an endeavor which doesn't require that we win a match, merely complete it, perhaps I'll dip my toe back into competitive matches? And based on how that goes, I may or may not decide to try the daily again.

Faulgor

AnduinTryggva wrote: »

I understand all this what you say. And this is basically what all decently good players will do. You learn from your mistakes and from the mistakes of your opponents and from what both sides did well and which works for them.

Please don't take offence it is not meant as such. But to be honest I think what you say does not help players to emulate your win rate. It - as far as I understand it - just states that you have to know the game and its mechanic well to win matches. Which is, to be honest, quite an obvious thing. At least I don't know how I could emulate it from what you write. I also don't know how you got your win rate and under which conditions it has been achieved and wheter it could be reproduced any time anywhere on any server at any time (for instance there are time slots a day where I lose more often than during other time slots indicating to me that the sample of players changes over day time). I won't say that you would not be able to reproduce it anytime. I simply don't know. You know surely better. Maybe you have an heuristics that works optimally. From your post it is however impossible to deduce it. So I wonder how your post could help others.

Yeah. I read all these sophisticated discussions, but I still haven't come upon anything that convinced me not to hate my time playing ToT. Matches are so long with so little reward, and such uncertainty for a reward, I wouldn't stomach this in any other part of the game. No wonder people are frustrated and become toxic!

If I came back with nothing as often when queuing into veteran dungeons, I certainly wouldn't do them. Difference is I know how to improve my performance in dungeons, and thus have the expectation that every time I go into it, I will "win", which means at least completing it. I have no clue how to combat RNG or my own ignorance in the card game. So simply completing the daily quest can take hours of failing, not least because the player base has become so small that even finding a match can take a while, ranked or casual.

twistedodean14

Faulgor wrote: »

AnduinTryggva wrote: »

I understand all this what you say. And this is basically what all decently good players will do. You learn from your mistakes and from the mistakes of your opponents and from what both sides did well and which works for them.

Please don't take offence it is not meant as such. But to be honest I think what you say does not help players to emulate your win rate. It - as far as I understand it - just states that you have to know the game and its mechanic well to win matches. Which is, to be honest, quite an obvious thing. At least I don't know how I could emulate it from what you write. I also don't know how you got your win rate and under which conditions it has been achieved and wheter it could be reproduced any time anywhere on any server at any time (for instance there are time slots a day where I lose more often than during other time slots indicating to me that the sample of players changes over day time). I won't say that you would not be able to reproduce it anytime. I simply don't know. You know surely better. Maybe you have an heuristics that works optimally. From your post it is however impossible to deduce it. So I wonder how your post could help others.

Yeah. I read all these sophisticated discussions, but I still haven't come upon anything that convinced me not to hate my time playing ToT. Matches are so long with so little reward, and such uncertainty for a reward, I wouldn't stomach this in any other part of the game. No wonder people are frustrated and become toxic!

If I came back with nothing as often when queuing into veteran dungeons, I certainly wouldn't do them. Difference is I know how to improve my performance in dungeons, and thus have the expectation that every time I go into it, I will "win", which means at least completing it. I have no clue how to combat RNG or my own ignorance in the card game. So simply completing the daily quest can take hours of failing, not least because the player base has become so small that even finding a match can take a while, ranked or casual.

While there is no real way to combat rng, there are a few things to consider. Some decks are good against others and some decks combined are lethal. Also, paying attention to your opponents play style / preference is important. Don't get caught up on using the decks/patrons you pick. Use whatever cards available to you to win. So if you notice the tavern isn't giving cards associated with the patrons/decks you pick. Then you just use whatever that's there to win. Practicing good deck management and tavern management is huge plus. If you have specific things you need help with dm me. Like some players, I don't have good rng. So playing with an mindset where you adopt to your circumstances definitely helps. Especially if you know multiple different strats.

Northwold

twistedodean14 wrote: »

Faulgor wrote: »

AnduinTryggva wrote: »

I understand all this what you say. And this is basically what all decently good players will do. You learn from your mistakes and from the mistakes of your opponents and from what both sides did well and which works for them.

Please don't take offence it is not meant as such. But to be honest I think what you say does not help players to emulate your win rate. It - as far as I understand it - just states that you have to know the game and its mechanic well to win matches. Which is, to be honest, quite an obvious thing. At least I don't know how I could emulate it from what you write. I also don't know how you got your win rate and under which conditions it has been achieved and wheter it could be reproduced any time anywhere on any server at any time (for instance there are time slots a day where I lose more often than during other time slots indicating to me that the sample of players changes over day time). I won't say that you would not be able to reproduce it anytime. I simply don't know. You know surely better. Maybe you have an heuristics that works optimally. From your post it is however impossible to deduce it. So I wonder how your post could help others.

Yeah. I read all these sophisticated discussions, but I still haven't come upon anything that convinced me not to hate my time playing ToT. Matches are so long with so little reward, and such uncertainty for a reward, I wouldn't stomach this in any other part of the game. No wonder people are frustrated and become toxic!

If I came back with nothing as often when queuing into veteran dungeons, I certainly wouldn't do them. Difference is I know how to improve my performance in dungeons, and thus have the expectation that every time I go into it, I will "win", which means at least completing it. I have no clue how to combat RNG or my own ignorance in the card game. So simply completing the daily quest can take hours of failing, not least because the player base has become so small that even finding a match can take a while, ranked or casual.

While there is no real way to combat rng, there are a few things to consider. Some decks are good against others and some decks combined are lethal. Also, paying attention to your opponents play style / preference is important. Don't get caught up on using the decks/patrons you pick. Use whatever cards available to you to win. So if you notice the tavern isn't giving cards associated with the patrons/decks you pick. Then you just use whatever that's there to win. Practicing good deck management and tavern management is huge plus. If you have specific things you need help with dm me. Like some players, I don't have good rng. So playing with an mindset where you adopt to your circumstances definitely helps. Especially if you know multiple different strats.

This is good advice. I just did a game with Rajhin and Crow and to my utter astonishment the other player left the Rajhin agent cards that cripple the opponent's power on the table in favour of yet more crow cards. Even more astonishing, they ignored Rajhin cards that would have destroyed my literal army of agents for.... Crows.

Having favourite decks and treating them as sacred cows, very often, will lose you the game.