We need to talk about Crow - again.

Seraphayel

I think it would help to stop drawing combos when your deck is depleted. This would bring endless Almalexia or Crow combos to a halt.

Seraphayel

Coming back to this as I’ve played like 30-40 games in the last two days and the apparent (ab)use of Crow was mind-numbing. I lost more than half of them and in almost each of those games I’ve went second and the opponent picked Crow. I just had a game where my opponent had 14 Crow cards in the end and was constantly drawing 6-7 additional cards per round. Sorry, this is pure insanity and sucks out every inch of fun I’m having with ToT.

The thing is, from my experience only mediocre players take Crow because it’s the easiest way to overcome a lack of skill and just win by pure luck (how do I know they’re mediocre at best and lack skill? I‘ve explained it above - wasting 20 coin on filling their deck with useless cards instead of using the patron, for example).

Mora is similar, but there you need skill to balance between having huge streaks of gaining power or giving your opponents too many good cards and dooming yourself. Where Mora requires observation of the opponent‘s deck, Crow doesn’t require an ounce of skill to be successful because you can easily overcome any tactic by drawing an infinite amount of cards, amassing a lot of coin or even power.

Why the hell do Crow cards even reward power? No other deck gives you this versatility while not requiring any thoughtful planning or tactics. No wonder so many players use Crow to climb the leaderboards.

Am I bitter and salty? Yes I am. Why? Because as soon as your opponent picks Crow you can throw out any tactics you’ve planned because you either need to outcrow him or have a lot of luck with a power-generating deck to be faster than they can amass Crow cards.

Seraphayel

This was one (!) round of my opponent. Does this look bloody normal to anyone? And these rounds happen way too much when someone reaches a critical treshold of Crow cards. It's ridiculous. My opponent played 14 (FOURTEEN!) cards from his hand instead of the regular five. And this one didn't even play with Reachmen as they usually do. Eight came from Crow, one from Loremaster. Are you kidding me?

spartaxoxo

They used the Celarus deck to control their card draw. They were able to do that because the ordered the cards in an advantageous way.

NoSoup

Seraphayel wrote: »

This was one (!) round of my opponent. Does this look bloody normal to anyone? And these rounds happen way too much when someone reaches a critical treshold of Crow cards. It's ridiculous. My opponent played 14 (FOURTEEN!) cards from his hand instead of the regular five. And this one didn't even play with Reachmen as they usually do. Eight came from Crow, one from Loremaster. Are you kidding me?

This isn't the hand of a "mediocore" or "no skill" player. Unfortunately you made a sismic error when you let them aquire the Psjic cards plus stack crow. They've carefully used the cycle effects to be able to stack crow draws and effectively punished you. A mediocre or unskilled player would have just dropped them first 5 cards and relied on luck to get the next lot of crow cards. I'm guessing this player used the blue 5 first, purple 1, 6, drew an used 4 to get 7, used purple 6 to cycle cards and draw purple 4 which gave them more croaw cards. You can see at the end despite using the contract blue cards they still had to settle on writs. So they've probably cycled through their whole hand at that stage.

If someone is stacking crow cards you must remove any cycle cards from the tavern as a priority.

SeaGtGruff

Dear ZOS,

Please don't mess with Crow deck.

Thank you!

sayswhoto

I'm surprised you see so much Crow on the EU ladder. From my brief experience, the upper ranks of NA PC ladder has more Orgnum+Pelin, which I think is the stronger deck combo and much more difficult to outplay. If you think Crow is bad, try recovering a game where the turn one player gets two strong power cards and just repeatedly spams the Orgnum patron power.

Crow can lose often to power generating rushes. Some examples are Orgnum+Pelin, Pelin with cycle/deck thinning, and Midnight Raid (Red Eagle) with deck thinning/cycling.

Seraphayel

NoSoup wrote: »

Seraphayel wrote: »

This was one (!) round of my opponent. Does this look bloody normal to anyone? And these rounds happen way too much when someone reaches a critical treshold of Crow cards. It's ridiculous. My opponent played 14 (FOURTEEN!) cards from his hand instead of the regular five. And this one didn't even play with Reachmen as they usually do. Eight came from Crow, one from Loremaster. Are you kidding me?

This isn't the hand of a "mediocore" or "no skill" player. Unfortunately you made a sismic error when you let them aquire the Psjic cards plus stack crow. They've carefully used the cycle effects to be able to stack crow draws and effectively punished you. A mediocre or unskilled player would have just dropped them first 5 cards and relied on luck to get the next lot of crow cards. I'm guessing this player used the blue 5 first, purple 1, 6, drew an used 4 to get 7, used purple 6 to cycle cards and draw purple 4 which gave them more croaw cards. You can see at the end despite using the contract blue cards they still had to settle on writs. So they've probably cycled through their whole hand at that stage.

If someone is stacking crow cards you must remove any cycle cards from the tavern as a priority.

You explained the entire turn in the exact wrong order. It started with the writs and not with the Psijic cards. The Psijic cards came at the end of the turn and where acquired during that exact turn and then reshuffled into the deck which then only consisted of the two acquired Psijic cards because everything else was already used.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

They used the Celarus deck to control their card draw. They were able to do that because the ordered the cards in an advantageous way.

Thank you for explaining me how the game works, but that doesn’t change any of the major underlying problems with Crow that still exist. It should be prohibited for decks like Crow (or Almalexia) to do this ad infinitum.

Ye_Olde_Crowe

No, we certainly don‘t need to talk about me.

spartaxoxo

Seraphayel wrote: »

Thank you for explaining me how the game works, but that doesn’t change any of the major underlying problems with Crow that still exist. It should be prohibited for decks like Crow (or Almalexia) to do this ad infinitum.

I mean if you have multiple decks combining, then it's not really a good example of the strength of just one of the decks.

I agree that crow combos can get pretty extreme but it's not more extreme than what can happen with Mora when it's pushed to its limit.

Seraphayel

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Seraphayel wrote: »

Thank you for explaining me how the game works, but that doesn’t change any of the major underlying problems with Crow that still exist. It should be prohibited for decks like Crow (or Almalexia) to do this ad infinitum.

I mean if you have multiple decks combining, then it's not really a good example of the strength of just one of the decks.

I agree that crow combos can get pretty extreme but it's not more extreme than what can happen with Mora when it's pushed to its limit.

Not sure how you can say that when Crow has zero drawbacks and can mindlessly be spammed whereas Mora has massive drawbacks, particularly when pitted against Crow. Both decks can unbalance a game rather quickly, but Crow has simply no disadvantages attached. It gives you Coin, Power and additional cards.

Mora in most cases just gives you raw Power while it gives your opponent additional cards (the worst drawback in general), a lot of Coin and Power (to a lesser extent). You have to play Mora carefully and always observe your opponents deck to not risk basically finishing off yourself. With Crow you really have not to do that.

spartaxoxo

Seraphayel wrote: »

You have to play Mora carefully and always observe your opponents deck to not risk basically finishing off yourself. With Crow you really have not to do that.

Mora is the only deck with a curse. But, they are generally so weak compared to the massive amounts of advantages that the kisses give, that it's almost always best to just play the Mora card. Mora is also very simple in that you only need to buy Mora cards to get the best out of it.

Crow is mainly only a problem when it's paired with another deck that allows for deck control. This requires planning things out ahead of time. You have to know how to use other cards to increase the odds of making the crow combos.

Crow's largest burst of power (the patron) is also limited in how often it can happen since the favored patron cannot be used. I have seen plenty of people lose games they could have won due to mistakes with that patron.

In addition, counterplay is much more wide ranging for Crow.

Seraphayel

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I have seen plenty of people lose games they could have won due to mistakes with that patron.

This is why I stated that players that usually resort to Crow are in most cases mediocre players. I'm not saying that no top-ranking player with a lot of skill is playing Crow also, but from hundreds and hundreds of games (my count for the last two months is almost 700 ranked games) in my experience players that always, exclusively pick Crow are on the lesser skilled side of the ToT playerbase.

spartaxoxo

Seraphayel wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I have seen plenty of people lose games they could have won due to mistakes with that patron.

This is why I stated that players that usually resort to Crow are in most cases mediocre players. I'm not saying that no top-ranking player with a lot of skill is playing Crow also, but from hundreds and hundreds of games (my count for the last two months is almost 700 ranked games) in my experience players that always, exclusively pick Crow are on the lesser skilled side of the ToT playerbase.

I don't consider Crow high skill. I just consider it higher skill than Mora. In general I consider the big power spamming decks (Pelin, Mora, Orgnum) to be less skillful than Crow. Crow is the least skillful of the rest though. Just my personal opinion.

Dimorphos

Many decks in TOT are pretty awful if you are not the one having luck with them. That being said, since TOT mechanics are based almost only on rng luck, nothing will fix the issue until they change the way this game works. I don't care how skillful someone thinks they are, it only plays a role while the rng luck is somewhat fair and square for both sides. But if the other side gets clearly more lucky and this is the way it goes like 8 out of 10 games, there is nothing you can do about it. I have played something like thousands of games, been in top and fell from top many times during a single day just because of bad rng luck. I have every deck, studied every combo and tactic and tried all sorts of variations, but when your opponent gets more luck than you and knows the basic mechanics of the game, there is nothing you can do to change the outcome without getting lucky too. I don't care who ever says and what, the game is mostly based on rng and that's just the way it is.

spartaxoxo

Dimorphos wrote: »

I don't care who ever says and what, the game is mostly based on rng and that's just the way it is.

We wouldn't have the same people consistently on top of the leaderboard and people reporting 90% winrates if that was the case. It's a card game, ofc there's RNG, but it's not mostly RNG.

Seraphayel

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Dimorphos wrote: »

I don't care who ever says and what, the game is mostly based on rng and that's just the way it is.

We wouldn't have the same people consistently on top of the leaderboard and people reporting 90% winrates if that was the case. It's a card game, ofc there's RNG, but it's not mostly RNG.

I very much doubt 90% win rates if players play hundreds of games per month. If they play just enough to get to the top and then do one or two games to stay there that win rate is basically meaningless.

spartaxoxo

Seraphayel wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Dimorphos wrote: »

I don't care who ever says and what, the game is mostly based on rng and that's just the way it is.

We wouldn't have the same people consistently on top of the leaderboard and people reporting 90% winrates if that was the case. It's a card game, ofc there's RNG, but it's not mostly RNG.

I very much doubt 90% win rates if players play hundreds of games per month. If they play just enough to get to the top and then do one or two games to stay there that win rate is basically meaningless.

There's a thread right now for someone who did 2000 casual games, for example. And that same person also previously got it with hundreds of competitive games, I'm like 70% positive.

Personofsecrets

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Seraphayel wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Dimorphos wrote: »

I don't care who ever says and what, the game is mostly based on rng and that's just the way it is.

We wouldn't have the same people consistently on top of the leaderboard and people reporting 90% winrates if that was the case. It's a card game, ofc there's RNG, but it's not mostly RNG.

I very much doubt 90% win rates if players play hundreds of games per month. If they play just enough to get to the top and then do one or two games to stay there that win rate is basically meaningless.

There's a thread right now for someone who did 2000 casual games, for example. And that same person also previously got it with hundreds of competitive games, I'm like 70% positive.

My competitive win rate is only 80%

Seraphayel

Personofsecrets wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Seraphayel wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Dimorphos wrote: »

I don't care who ever says and what, the game is mostly based on rng and that's just the way it is.

We wouldn't have the same people consistently on top of the leaderboard and people reporting 90% winrates if that was the case. It's a card game, ofc there's RNG, but it's not mostly RNG.

I very much doubt 90% win rates if players play hundreds of games per month. If they play just enough to get to the top and then do one or two games to stay there that win rate is basically meaningless.

There's a thread right now for someone who did 2000 casual games, for example. And that same person also previously got it with hundreds of competitive games, I'm like 70% positive.

My competitive win rate is only 80%

In what timeframe, e.g. 2000 matches over the course of a year, 2000 matches since the implementation of High Isle…?

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Seraphayel wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Dimorphos wrote: »

I don't care who ever says and what, the game is mostly based on rng and that's just the way it is.

We wouldn't have the same people consistently on top of the leaderboard and people reporting 90% winrates if that was the case. It's a card game, ofc there's RNG, but it's not mostly RNG.

I very much doubt 90% win rates if players play hundreds of games per month. If they play just enough to get to the top and then do one or two games to stay there that win rate is basically meaningless.

There's a thread right now for someone who did 2000 casual games, for example. And that same person also previously got it with hundreds of competitive games, I'm like 70% positive.

I‘m not denying that it can exist at all, I’m just questioning its existence under certain circumstances, e.g. what I’ve said with playing hundreds of games per month.

Seraphayel

Out of the last 100 ranked matches I‘ve played, opponents picked Crow 81 times. Nobody can tell me the deck is fine. It‘s the poor man tactics to win a game by luck and RNG without putting much thought or strategy into it because it becomes a race for Crow cards. If this deck wouldn’t just have advantages and be so simple and overperforming overall, not a majority of players would always resort to (and unfortunately succeed with) it.