Going second is still the biggest reason for losing a match - why isn’t it changed?

Seraphayel

Title.

I‘ve been tracking my wins / losses as 1st / 2nd place the entirety of last year and for this year I’m doing the same. The only pattern that exists is the fact that going second is in most of all cases the reason why you‘re going to lose a match.

Yes, your skill still matters. Yes, good luck can still make you a winner. But it‘s obvious with my data (and data others have gathered) that going second is just the doomsday clock already ticking for you before the match even began.

Why is nothing changed? Instead of just giving one additional coin, the second player should get a writ. This way the disadvantage isn’t just compensated in the very first round (and in many cases this doesn’t mean much anyway).

Another observation: I had like half a dozen games in a row where I always started second. While not impossible, this seems highly unlikely, especially when it happens several times on different days.

Faulgor

Going first is mainly good because it allows you to pick the best card out of the starting tavern - sometimes there aren't any, sometimes there are several and the player going second actually gets to pick the better, 6 cost card.

I like the idea of giving the 2nd player a writ, though it's possible that this just flips the advantage (e.g. in TES Legends, going 2nd and getting the bonus Magicka is the prefered option). I'd like to see this at least tested on PTS, though.

The underlying problem is that the game tends to snowball hard.

DenverRalphy

Really? I find it quite the opposite. I prefer going second.

The extra coin gives me more options, and if my opponent buys a card from the tavern, I'm armed with more info than he/she did on their first turn.

If you want to sacrifice for a writ:

• 1st player can buy a single card worth 2 or 3 coin.
• 2nd player can buy a single card worth 2, 3, or 4 coin. Or even 2x 2 coin.

If you're going to forego generating a writ:

• 1st player can buy a single card up to 5 coin. Or 2 cards worth 2 or a 2 and a 3.
• 2nd player can buy a single card up to 6 (which is typically significant), 3 cards worth 2, 2 cards worth 2 and 3, or 2 cards worth 3.

The only advantageg that playing st gets you is that you get firt crack at any card that you know you want. But even then the odds are against you that it shows up on the first flop. Too often a player will snatch a card first is because all they saw was that it was the color of the deck they prefer and grabbed it solely to make sure their opponent doesn't. But then they find themself with a card of the color they know they want, but no way to play it unless they're luck holds out and more support cards come out. But then it can be too late because they tipped their hand to their opponent that's now going to use patrons or contract cards to remove those cards from the table (or snatch them for themselves).

FrancisCrawford

DenverRalphy wrote: »

Really? I find it quite the opposite. I prefer going second.

The extra coin gives me more options, and if my opponent buys a card from the tavern, I'm armed with more info than he/she did on their first turn.

If you want to sacrifice for a writ:

• 1st player can buy a single card worth 2 or 3 coin.
• 2nd player can buy a single card worth 2, 3, or 4 coin. Or even 2x 2 coin.

If you're going to forego generating a writ:

• 1st player can buy a single card up to 5 coin. Or 2 cards worth 2 or a 2 and a 3.
• 2nd player can buy a single card up to 6 (which is typically significant), 3 cards worth 2, 2 cards worth 2 and 3, or 2 cards worth 3.

The only advantageg that playing st gets you is that you get firt crack at any card that you know you want. But even then the odds are against you that it shows up on the first flop. Too often a player will snatch a card first is because all they saw was that it was the color of the deck they prefer and grabbed it solely to make sure their opponent doesn't. But then they find themself with a card of the color they know they want, but no way to play it unless they're luck holds out and more support cards come out. But then it can be too late because they tipped their hand to their opponent that's now going to use patrons or contract cards to remove those cards from the table (or snatch them for themselves).

Given that your experience seems to be different from most people's -- what mix of patrons do you usually play?

DenverRalphy

FrancisCrawford wrote: »

Given that your experience seems to be different from most people's -- what mix of patrons do you usually play?

I don't have a usual strategy or preference of decks. If I choose second, it depends on what my opponent opened with. If I choose first, it just depends on my mood really.

VoidCommander

If you are going first, the meta is that you MUST pick a patron with a power generating starter card. This way there is at least a 50% chance your opponent can't get 6 gold to buy the "winning cards" on turn one. Its not that the player who goes 2nd always gets a bad deal, its that players who go first know what decks to pick to specifically disadvantage the second player while having it not usually impact the first player as much. This becomes especially true for card options in the tavern that are 5 gold or less. With few exceptions, most cards less than 5 gold are not going to be massive game changers, so the first player can often take his pick OR burn their power generation card. Meanwhile, the second player can't usually buy a card for 2 gold (that would have been sniped by the first player already), and is forced to also burn their power generation card instead of buying a powerful 6 cost card.

One way as a player going second can perhaps mitigate this is to pick druids, since most of their strongest cards (agents) are 5 gold or less.

Necrotech_Master

i dont really have a lot of experience playing against players, but for playing NPCs it really doesnt seem to matter at all going first or 2nd lol

still beat the NPCs 95% of the time regardless who starts first

in terms of pvp tribute, i have only ever played a total of about 28 pvp matches since tribute launched lol, and 95% of those games were literally just patron spamming to work on the achievements needed to get the cards upgraded