My observations from carrying a 90% win rate accross 2000 casual games.

Personofsecrets

It finally happened, I reached 2000 games in the casual game mode and have some observations from this effort.

1.) I believe that I have reached the maximum sustainable win rate allowed by the game rules. I've been as high as a 90.3% win rate, but a lower equilibrium point is realized due to how the game works.

1.2) The way that the game works seems to cause long streaks of going second for the time being. This issue, if real, may impact my win rate negatively.

1.3) The way that the game works seems to cause card duplication to happen during most games. This issue, if real, has absolutely impacted my win rate in a negative way.

2.) The amount of skill or chance required to win a game is relative to who is playing the game, what the situation is, and how the game works.

2.1) Less skilled players may need extremely fortunate circumstances to win or to have those circumstances happen several times in order to win.

2.2) More skilled players may need a relatively less "lucky" moment to win. Such "lucky" moment can create an out of control game state.

2.3) Cards such as contracts, the hypothetical repeat card issue, and cards that are slightly or way too overlypowerful can create a mess out of otherwise thoughtful games.

2.3.2) It CAN be skillful to play around randomness, but that is a lesser skill than things such as card manipulations and creating a game plan.

3.) A number of players can only have decent odds of winning when abusing certain strategies.

3.1) There were a couple of players who always used Crow in our matches and would tend to build huge Crow chains during the games that they won. Both of these players, for some odd reason, switched to using Mora and now have a much much worse win rate against me.

3.1.2) It could be that those players were REALLY skilled at Crow and are REALLY unskilled at Mora. Maybe that is part of the issue, but I tend to think that the change has little to do with skill and more to do with their natural idiosynchrasies that just so happened to jell together with Crow. This type of dynamic could actually be revealing how unskilled they actually are at the game this entire time.

3.1.3) I would say that they are a archetype of player who just is not thinking very much about the game. They probably switched to Mora since they just want to not exert to much effort. Ironically, and possibly because of how the repeat card issue may be happening, it seems to be the case that their choice to switch is costing them since the Crow play is possibly more canned and less requiring of various skills.

3.2) There are a few players that have learned to only play Sorcerer-King/Pellin or Mora/power generating strategies against me and they have okay success.

3.2.1) I still defeat these players most of the time, but they are able to have some odds against me. I'm considering reasonable odds to even be 20% or the likes.

3.2.2) I'll be clear that I find such happening abhorent. Such players don't necessarily become more skillful because of their Patron choice, but they nonetheless invoke a strategy that has some % chance of winning a game, even despite poor decision making, just because of how such games inherently tend to play out.

3.2.3) It bears repeating that the win rate increase caused by these Patron selections also is impacted by the aforementioned skill diminishing dynamics of the game such if 1st/2nd player getting advantages due to their starting position alone, the hypothetical issue with 1st/2nd player choice being repeated over and over, the hypothetical issue of card repeats allowing for quick and dirty power generating combos right from the early game, the occurrence of contracts which may be timely, the issue of contracts that do too much for too little. and, of course, general balance issues which range from being minor to massively problematic in the most serious of game ending ways.

Those are all of the thoughts that I've hashed out regarding this experiment and, ultimately, how it pertains to what I think could improve TOT. I think that the game could be better if a number of the things that I point out in section 3.2.3 were removed/changed/improved/whatever. The goal of any game should be elevating the better and having as few of these side circumstances where the better player can get trampled because of circumstancial stuff rather than the opponents in the moment skillful play.

Special note: It may not be obvious, so I explcitly state that I'm not trying to deride or denigrate with the above discussion. You have to do what you have to do. It's a game issue that you may find yourself using certain strategies. it's not your problem. Additionally, my observations in this post are meant to come from my experience with the casual matchmaking mode only. I think that the lessons that I've learned from casual apply to the ranked playlist too, but because of what I point out in section 2.2, there is a limit to what a game can do to be better. There will always be a cieling on how much game outcomes can be skill driven alone. There is therefore a limit to what designers can do to imrpove their games past a certain point. For example, there are going to be limitations to games where one player moves first and a finite amount can be done about 1st/2nd player advantage. That said, as much that is possible should be done to improve games. And even without going to that extreme, it's quite easy to see how some improvements, especially concerning power level, would take nothing to improve. Other than that, please keep balance in mind as you continue to work on bugs and new content. I know that it's alot, but you have the tools and can do it - thank you.

spartaxoxo

Which decks were you using?

Personofsecrets

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Which decks were you using?

That depends on the situation.

If I'm going first, then I'm always picking Celarus, but the second pick changes. Usually, I pick Delmene if the opponent has picked a power generating strategy. I like to pick Almalexia or once in a while Rajhiin if I'm guaranteed 5 gold on my first turn. I'm not really sure what is better, but I lean toward Almalexia since I've had a opponents who win off of the back of Pounce/Grand and Pounce/Grand alone if they happen to get it.

When I'm going second, It's probably most common for me to pick Red Eagle and Almalexia when the opponent has revealed a power generating option. Sometimes I go Rajhiin and Red Eagle for the chance of the scums. Sometimes I go Red Eagle and Druid King. Going second feels bad to me and I really don't know what is best, so I switch things up and experiment.

I never chose Pellin, Sorcerer-King, Mora, or Ansei. I don't like power generating strategies because games where they are utilized lead to there being less chances to outplay an opponent who has gotten one or two of them.

I actually think that Pellin or Sorcerer-King can be defensible 1st turn picks for someone who wants to be as competitive as possible because of just how absolutely devestating a good first pick can be when it's generating prestige pressure from the very start of the game.

I don't believe that Mora or Ansei are ever defensible picks no matter what because of their random nature. Mora contracts are too swingy to deal with for someone looking for the highest win rate possible. I also feel like the curse/kiss abilities actually take agency away from players rather than provide more agency. Thye Ansei patron is particularly egregious since it can be flipped on the first turn for the reason of chance alone and then lead to blowouts of 2nd turn 6 gold generation. I don't know why anyone would want to deal with that mess and I don't think that it lends itself to a high win rate, but there has been a lader player that picks the patron every time and they not only seem to do perfectly fine, but have a better win rate than I do against a specific player who goes first around 70% of the time and always picks power generating strategies. I can't easily say why this happens, but I do have to concede that maybe there is something to it even if I don't think that there is. For example, maybe it's really good as first player because of the powerful 4 cost cards, but still lets you roll the dice when going second against power generating players or those who had an otherwise excellent first turn.

spartaxoxo

I actually surprised to hear you feel that way about Ansei. I find it to be a deceptively complicated deck. It's certainly the best designed of the power generating decks imo, certainly more skillful than Pelin. I also find it one of the better second player decks from my personal experience but I haven't stat tracked that like you have and admit to much less experience.

Anyway, this has been a good and insightful post!

Personofsecrets

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I actually surprised to hear you feel that way about Ansei. I find it to be a deceptively complicated deck. It's certainly the best designed of the power generating decks imo, certainly more skillful than Pelin. I also find it one of the better second player decks from my personal experience but I haven't stat tracked that like you have and admit to much less experience.

Anyway, this has been a good and insightful post!

I would like Ansei much more because I think that I would be advantaged over others in planning out lines via the refresh to the top of the deck cards, but I've lost a huge number of games to what I perceive to be strictly problems caused by the Ansei Patron flip RNG fiesta. So on top of being a power generating strategy which I generally dislike, it also has this other aspect that I find highly disadvantageous.

spartaxoxo

I suppose but the Ansei patron is the most well-balanced of the RNG mechanics (which I expect in a card game). It's usually not doing too much and can be overcome with skillful gameplay. That's especially true once you have started to be able to push the refresh aspect to it's most powerful form, which takes skill and planning. The real power of Ansei deck is in the refresh imo, not the patron or most of the power card. Although, that 4 coin card is too good.

Personofsecrets

I don't find the Ansei Patron button to be balanced so well. There are a few different types of games that happen with them and they are all somewhat degenerate. What I mean by that is that they "degenerate" around or towards the fact that someone ended up with Ansei button control and the rest of the game became somewhat solved because that occurrence.

There is an early Grand Oratory combined with the starter Ansei card which creates a situation where someone get's to flip the Ansei patron for free on an early turn. This easily can cause a blowout.

There is a "balanced" back and forth by players buying contracts or getting lucky with starter cards until the contracts run out or the starter cards don't come in the right order and then. And once that happens there can easily be a blowout.

There is the game where someone get's a power generating card early, there aren't any others, and then there is no way for the other player to contest the Ansei Patron.

One gold can be a monumental difference between doing something just okay and something that breaks the pace of the game. It would be much more balanced if it gave players something besides gold. Was the Patron known for giving out gold? I could be mistaken, but I don't think so.

What can be "balanced" is a funny idea. That's because many people may find balance in all kinds of cases where something is clearly imbalanced in other ways. For example, coin flips are "balanced" and can be useful, but aren't necessarily something that should be deciding games. The one gold from the Ansei patron I think is just like that.

spartaxoxo

I have played Ansei quite a bit and have lost more games obsessing over the patron than won them because of it.

Personofsecrets

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I have played Ansei quite a bit and have lost more games obsessing over the patron than won them because of it.

Yes, it certainly is easy to lose the game by fighting over it just like it's easy to lose when not able to fight over it (especially on a critical turn).

spartaxoxo

Personofsecrets wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I have played Ansei quite a bit and have lost more games obsessing over the patron than won them because of it.

Yes, it certainly is easy to lose the game by fighting over it just like it's easy to lose when not able to fight over it (especially on a critical turn).

I haven't actually lost too many games by not fighting over it. It's really strongest early game and then loses strength as time goes on.

Personofsecrets

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Personofsecrets wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I have played Ansei quite a bit and have lost more games obsessing over the patron than won them because of it.

Yes, it certainly is easy to lose the game by fighting over it just like it's easy to lose when not able to fight over it (especially on a critical turn).

I haven't actually lost too many games by not fighting over it. It's really strongest early game and then loses strength as time goes on.

That's what a 2nd turn Hlallu Oathman or Hira's End for the opponent is. Losing after not being able to fight over the button and getting stiffed with a power generating starter card instead as the opponent goes into their 3rd/4th round with a power card and carrying on the Patron advantage. I've had this type of game happen with losing consequences enough that it sticks in my mind.

spartaxoxo

Personofsecrets wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Personofsecrets wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I have played Ansei quite a bit and have lost more games obsessing over the patron than won them because of it.

Yes, it certainly is easy to lose the game by fighting over it just like it's easy to lose when not able to fight over it (especially on a critical turn).

I haven't actually lost too many games by not fighting over it. It's really strongest early game and then loses strength as time goes on.

That's what a 2nd turn Hlallu Oathman or Hira's End for the opponent is. Losing after not being able to fight over the button and getting stiffed with a power generating starter card instead as the opponent goes into their 3rd/4th round with a power card and carrying on the Patron advantage. I've had this type of game happen with losing consequences enough that it sticks in my mind.

Yeah but you also have a 90% winrate, so I'm sure losses probably stick out more just naturally. Give it a try while purposefully making it a point not to fight over the button. It was the key to enjoying the Ansei deck for me.

Personofsecrets

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Personofsecrets wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Personofsecrets wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I have played Ansei quite a bit and have lost more games obsessing over the patron than won them because of it.

Yes, it certainly is easy to lose the game by fighting over it just like it's easy to lose when not able to fight over it (especially on a critical turn).

I haven't actually lost too many games by not fighting over it. It's really strongest early game and then loses strength as time goes on.

That's what a 2nd turn Hlallu Oathman or Hira's End for the opponent is. Losing after not being able to fight over the button and getting stiffed with a power generating starter card instead as the opponent goes into their 3rd/4th round with a power card and carrying on the Patron advantage. I've had this type of game happen with losing consequences enough that it sticks in my mind.

Yeah but you also have a 90% winrate, so I'm sure losses probably stick out more just naturally. Give it a try while purposefully making it a point not to fight over the button. It was the key to enjoying the Ansei deck for me.

Sometimes I try to flip back the button and sometimes I don't. Even with possible lapses of judgement at times, I largely see the button as a problem due to the scenarios earlier pointed out that don't really feel fair. The biggest ones being the Grand Oratory combo and getting a 6 cost card, as the first player, on the 2nd turn with help of the button rather than having to wait until the 3rd or 4th round.

Necrotech_Master

impressive win rate lol

im not really sure the point of the rest of it though, not sure if you are expecting 100% win rate or something as that would be even less statistically likely, but what this does prove in my point of view is that the game of tribute is not pure random and there is a lot of strategy involved

while some elements in the game can be random, your win rate certainly proves you know how to deal with adverse situations, and also make few mistakes on the options you have available per turn

Personofsecrets

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

impressive win rate lol

im not really sure the point of the rest of it though, not sure if you are expecting 100% win rate or something as that would be even less statistically likely, but what this does prove in my point of view is that the game of tribute is not pure random and there is a lot of strategy involved

while some elements in the game can be random, your win rate certainly proves you know how to deal with adverse situations, and also make few mistakes on the options you have available per turn

Unfortunately, I make more errors, even in games where I'm paying attention, than I care to admit. That said, I still think that I'm close to the ceiling of what's possible. Even though I know that a 100% win rate isn't possible, I also can very easily see how players can still be rewarded despite making mistakes or buying cards seemingly without some deeper strategy. That is why I say that there is a win rate ceiling. The way that the game is built simply lends itself to certain situation being impossible to over come despite skill gaps. Maybe a player better than I could reach something like a 94% or 95% win rate, but then we could still have this similar conversation when looking at the things that caused them to lose.

Necrotech_Master

Personofsecrets wrote: »

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

impressive win rate lol

im not really sure the point of the rest of it though, not sure if you are expecting 100% win rate or something as that would be even less statistically likely, but what this does prove in my point of view is that the game of tribute is not pure random and there is a lot of strategy involved

while some elements in the game can be random, your win rate certainly proves you know how to deal with adverse situations, and also make few mistakes on the options you have available per turn

Unfortunately, I make more errors, even in games where I'm paying attention, than I care to admit. That said, I still think that I'm close to the ceiling of what's possible. Even though I know that a 100% win rate isn't possible, I also can very easily see how players can still be rewarded despite making mistakes or buying cards seemingly without some deeper strategy. That is why I say that there is a win rate ceiling. The way that the game is built simply lends itself to certain situation being impossible to over come despite skill gaps. Maybe a player better than I could reach something like a 94% or 95% win rate, but then we could still have this similar conversation when looking at the things that caused them to lose.

i agree, because there is some element of randomness (who starts, whats in tavern at any given point in time, whats drawn into the tavern, etc) it would be impossible to get 100% win rate unless for whatever bizarre reason every opponent you faced conceded just by seeing your name our of fear (lol, kind of joking there)

ive definitely had some of those unrecoverable situations happen in NPC games, i usually only bother playing the novice ones and every once in awhile ill still hit a situation due to a combination mistakes and bad luck, ill still lose, but if i had to guess im sitting around 95% win rate against the NPCs (i dont use the addon to track that so dont know for certain)

Seraphayel

Why are you just playing casual? Those observations are great and informative, but eventually flawed due to the pool of players you’re competing against.

Personofsecrets

Seraphayel wrote: »

Why are you just playing casual? Those observations are great and informative, but eventually flawed due to the pool of players you’re competing against.

Playing casual is exactly what I want to do and especially for finding how much "luck" impacts the game. It's not going to be a perfect comparison or maybe even a very good comparison, but it seems to me that the effect of playing against more skilled players would highly confound realizing the luck factor.

Additionally, myself and others have made complaints about the rank system. Until the rank system is improved, and it seems like that time will not be the next patch but some unknown time in the future based on the most recent patch notes, I will continue to play mostly casual and not be aggravated by ranked matchmaking.

I would much rather have my skills tested more often by more highly skilled players, but the way that the point system is, especially when someone wins a game off of me in ranked without playing particularly well, makes me very unhappy. I've been playing enough for the free 100k gold and that's about it. No need for further aggravation and especially not when people are able to get free wins with Sorcerer-King, Pelin, and Mora scums that cost me 150 points.