Starting drawing clear advantage - as shown by my data

AnduinTryggva

I made a little statistics for my matches in order to see if being first to draw or second is indifferent with respect to winning or losing a match or if it is an important factor. To this end I kept statistics for over 200 of my matches (207 to be precise) not counting any matches that ended in a patron win.

The data is:

When I could draw first:
- I won 60 times
- I lost 42 times

When I had to draw second
- I won 32 times
- I lost 73 times

I think the tendency is pretty clear: Drawing first is a clear advantage that is NOT mitigated by the one extra gold for the player who draws second.

I am not a very good player so I benefit slightly less from drawing first but I lose much more when drawing second. So this is clearly consistent.

JJMaxx1980

This doesn’t take into account Patron decisions, which can be chosen based on whether going first or second.

Personofsecrets

Going first is quite clearly better since first player get's the first crack at shuffling their deck, drawing writs of coin, and exerting more influence over the tavern.

The best solution, IMO, is increasing the number of cards in the tavern. That will help ensure that there are less games where one players gets to ride a power card purchase to victory in the cases that the opponent got no option to buy any power cards.

AnduinTryggva

JJMaxx1980 wrote: »

This doesn’t take into account Patron decisions, which can be chosen based on whether going first or second.

Not quite sure what you mean. Before you know if you will draw first or second the patron selection is done.

And interacting with patrons is first available to both players at the time of their draw (meaning that the first player also has first the opportunity to interact with a patron), second my data base is accross matches with various decks so whatever effect you are talking about is already included in the numbers. And they have a clear and very obvious message supporting that what has been said by other players before in various threads.

AnduinTryggva

Personofsecrets wrote: »

Going first is quite clearly better since first player get's the first crack at shuffling their deck, drawing writs of coin, and exerting more influence over the tavern.

The best solution, IMO, is increasing the number of cards in the tavern. That will help ensure that there are less games where one players gets to ride a power card purchase to victory in the cases that the opponent got no option to buy any power cards.

I have to say that probably one option that was proposed by another player in another thread may also be a good way around this issue:

While the first player draws keep random 50% of the cards in the tavern turned face down that cannot be turned and bought by the first player. Uncover and make them available when the second player can draw.

SilverBride

I actually prefer to go second because that extra coin has made it possible to get a card I wanted on the first draw.

jaws343

I actually find that the 5 cards drawn on your first turn have a greater impact on your success than whether you went first or second.

For example, say the Patrons chosen are Pelin and Red Eagle, with Crows and Hlaalu.

Both players get 2 power cards in their 10 cards base deck.

If a player has the unfortunate occurrence of getting both of those power cards on their first turn or their second turn, they are at a serious disadvantage for at least 2 or 3 more turns.

Say I go first, and I get both power cards. I now only have 3 coin, and likely cannot buy anything worthwhile or do anything but exchange for a 2 coin writ. And going seconds gets me 4 coin, which is still less of an advantage than my opponent going first and not getting any power cards in their opening hand.

Even if I am only getting 1 power coin in the first hand, I then have to eat another power in the second hand on my next turn. Meaning, 2 straight 4 coin turns if I go first, and 1 5 coin, 1 4 coin turn if I go second. Of which, my opponent has at least 1 opportunity to get ahead of me in card draw. It's not as bad as the 2 power, 1 hand situation, but it isn't great.

If they removed starting Power cards from the 10 card starter deck, it would even things out immensely during those first few turns.

Largomets

Honestly I think that play style, opponent, decks, cards drawn in hand, and what is on the tavern all affects this more than just who goes first or second.

For example, if red deck is in play (and screw you for picking red if you do, it's way too much RNG to be a fun game compared to any other deck), mathematically player 2 has an advantage on red deck. If armory spawns, player 1 MIGHT be able to buy it, but player 2 WILL be able to buy it. If a non-armory card spawns, player 1 buys it, and the odds armory are behind it is not 0 vs. the fact that there is no armory on the table for player 1.

For other decks, there is not really one card that gives a definitive enough advantage that you can't overcome a single card purchase. Plus, a LOT of the cards people like to gobble up on hand 1 are mediocre at best, and then the odds of revealing something good behind it are high enough that you might be doing player 2 a favor by clearing the tavern of inferior cards.

Finally, you should be picking your patrons with what they picked in your mind. If they pick black to open, and you're worried about them getting midnight, then pick orange and hit them with bewilderment early to reduce the chances it combos.

All this is to say, I stopped paying attention to whether I go first or second, because even really bad starts can be overcome if you're a better player and smart about how you hedge your RNG. And if at the end of the day RNG favors them strongly but not you, it's a card game. RNG is a big part of card games.

AnduinTryggva

If playstyle would be more important than who draws first my numbers would be different and there would be less influence of drawing order as I have my style which may be crab but which would result in more similar numbers whether I started to draw or not.

My numbers clearly indicate that it IS an important factor.

Surely it is not the only one, otherwise I would not be able to win when drawing second. But still, drawing second diminish my chances to win significantly.

Largomets

I mean, not be a jerk, but it's a little egotistical to say something is not working for you so THEREFOR it is broken.

There's definitely some scenarios where going first is a benefit. There's other scenarios where going second is a benefit. Learning how to adapt to what your opponent picks and change what patrons you pick based on whether you're first or second, and what they pick, is just as much a part of the game as the game itself.

If they go first and pick black, I'm going to probably pick yellow and green to counter. If I go second and they open with organum, I'm going to pick yellow and orange to counter. Whether I go first or second and what deck they pick to open (or what decks they pick if they go 2) informs my decisions.

My question to you is, are you making these types of decisions, or do you have "your decks" you want to play with no matter what the other person picks and what order you go in? Like, if you're picking psijic and crow every game as an example, regardless of if you go first or second, you have a larger advantage going first, so you're setting your "stats" up for failure. You can't get a meaningful win/lose ratio because you're not changing your play style to adapt to your opponent.

Largomets

Apparently I can't edit, flip yellow and orange in my examples. Orange and yellow to counter black, yellow and green to counter organum. I goofed it

redspecter23

I'd like to see best 2 out of 3 sets with the loser of any given game choosing who goes first in the next. Two layers of lowering RNG swings. It would of course lead to longer overall games, but perhaps restrict it to top tiers where RNG can have a much more massive impact. Each game in the match would count toward daily progress potentially. Leaderboard score is just based on the final 2 out of 3 outcome.

Heartrage

It also doesn’t take into account individual bias. It’s possible that your preferred strategies for patron picking/ first cards picks affect the winning odds for the first player.

Heartrage

AnduinTryggva wrote: »

JJMaxx1980 wrote: »

This doesn’t take into account Patron decisions, which can be chosen based on whether going first or second.

Not quite sure what you mean. Before you know if you will draw first or second the patron selection is done.

And interacting with patrons is first available to both players at the time of their draw (meaning that the first player also has first the opportunity to interact with a patron), second my data base is accross matches with various decks so whatever effect you are talking about is already included in the numbers. And they have a clear and very obvious message supporting that what has been said by other players before in various threads.

Actually, you select patrons after you learn if you draw first or second. The first player to play also choose one patron first.

AnduinTryggva

Heartrage wrote: »

AnduinTryggva wrote: »

JJMaxx1980 wrote: »

This doesn’t take into account Patron decisions, which can be chosen based on whether going first or second.

Not quite sure what you mean. Before you know if you will draw first or second the patron selection is done.

And interacting with patrons is first available to both players at the time of their draw (meaning that the first player also has first the opportunity to interact with a patron), second my data base is accross matches with various decks so whatever effect you are talking about is already included in the numbers. And they have a clear and very obvious message supporting that what has been said by other players before in various threads.

Actually, you select patrons after you learn if you draw first or second. The first player to play also choose one patron first.

That is simply not true for the game I play. You and your opponent first select the 4 patrons and then it is decided who plays first.

jaws343

AnduinTryggva wrote: »

Heartrage wrote: »

AnduinTryggva wrote: »

JJMaxx1980 wrote: »

This doesn’t take into account Patron decisions, which can be chosen based on whether going first or second.

Not quite sure what you mean. Before you know if you will draw first or second the patron selection is done.

And interacting with patrons is first available to both players at the time of their draw (meaning that the first player also has first the opportunity to interact with a patron), second my data base is accross matches with various decks so whatever effect you are talking about is already included in the numbers. And they have a clear and very obvious message supporting that what has been said by other players before in various threads.

Actually, you select patrons after you learn if you draw first or second. The first player to play also choose one patron first.

That is simply not true for the game I play. You and your opponent first select the 4 patrons and then it is decided who plays first.

I believe the order in which you select patrons corresponds to who goes first.

AnduinTryggva

And please. Do your own statistics. Really simple.

Draw 4 columns.

1 column: count all matches where you drew first and win
2 column: count all matches where you drew first and lose
3 column: count all matches where you drew second and win
4 column: count all matches where you drew second and lose

Your numbers may be slightly different from mine and I concede that with some more smart picking you manage to reduce the gab that I have observed. But I am pretty sure that you will still observe a bias towards who can draw first.

AnduinTryggva

jaws343 wrote: »

AnduinTryggva wrote: »

Heartrage wrote: »

AnduinTryggva wrote: »

JJMaxx1980 wrote: »

This doesn’t take into account Patron decisions, which can be chosen based on whether going first or second.

Not quite sure what you mean. Before you know if you will draw first or second the patron selection is done.

And interacting with patrons is first available to both players at the time of their draw (meaning that the first player also has first the opportunity to interact with a patron), second my data base is accross matches with various decks so whatever effect you are talking about is already included in the numbers. And they have a clear and very obvious message supporting that what has been said by other players before in various threads.

Actually, you select patrons after you learn if you draw first or second. The first player to play also choose one patron first.

That is simply not true for the game I play. You and your opponent first select the 4 patrons and then it is decided who plays first.

I believe the order in which you select patrons corresponds to who goes first.

Can you demonstrate. Please share your observation so I can re do this and check.

AnduinTryggva

jaws343 wrote: »

AnduinTryggva wrote: »

Heartrage wrote: »

AnduinTryggva wrote: »

JJMaxx1980 wrote: »

This doesn’t take into account Patron decisions, which can be chosen based on whether going first or second.

Not quite sure what you mean. Before you know if you will draw first or second the patron selection is done.

And interacting with patrons is first available to both players at the time of their draw (meaning that the first player also has first the opportunity to interact with a patron), second my data base is accross matches with various decks so whatever effect you are talking about is already included in the numbers. And they have a clear and very obvious message supporting that what has been said by other players before in various threads.

Actually, you select patrons after you learn if you draw first or second. The first player to play also choose one patron first.

That is simply not true for the game I play. You and your opponent first select the 4 patrons and then it is decided who plays first.

I believe the order in which you select patrons corresponds to who goes first.

Please let us know which patron pick allows goinf first.

Heartrage

AnduinTryggva wrote: »

jaws343 wrote: »

AnduinTryggva wrote: »

Heartrage wrote: »

AnduinTryggva wrote: »

JJMaxx1980 wrote: »

This doesn’t take into account Patron decisions, which can be chosen based on whether going first or second.

Not quite sure what you mean. Before you know if you will draw first or second the patron selection is done.

And interacting with patrons is first available to both players at the time of their draw (meaning that the first player also has first the opportunity to interact with a patron), second my data base is accross matches with various decks so whatever effect you are talking about is already included in the numbers. And they have a clear and very obvious message supporting that what has been said by other players before in various threads.

Actually, you select patrons after you learn if you draw first or second. The first player to play also choose one patron first.

That is simply not true for the game I play. You and your opponent first select the 4 patrons and then it is decided who plays first.

I believe the order in which you select patrons corresponds to who goes first.

Please let us know which patron pick allows goinf first.

The first person who can pick a patron goes first unless you play against an npc in which case the npc choose two patrons and then you choose two and the one who plays first is random.

Jaimeh

OP, it also depends on which patrons were chosen in those games, since something like Pelin has strong cards that if drawing first can have an impact, etc. Without the patrons in consideration, I don't think the conclusion is really valid.

KefkaGestahl

It's anecdotal and doesn't prove anything. Many times I prefer going second because I get to buy a card and still use the treasury patron when the first person is stuck buying a card without the treasury. My economy is then stronger and I can afford round three armories or currency exchanges.

AnduinTryggva

KefkaGestahl wrote: »

It's anecdotal and doesn't prove anything. Many times I prefer going second because I get to buy a card and still use the treasury patron when the first person is stuck buying a card without the treasury. My economy is then stronger and I can afford round three armories or currency exchanges.

You may disagree with what I wrote but 207 matches cannot be called "anecdotal".

AnduinTryggva

jaws343 wrote: »

AnduinTryggva wrote: »

Heartrage wrote: »

AnduinTryggva wrote: »

JJMaxx1980 wrote: »

This doesn’t take into account Patron decisions, which can be chosen based on whether going first or second.

Not quite sure what you mean. Before you know if you will draw first or second the patron selection is done.

And interacting with patrons is first available to both players at the time of their draw (meaning that the first player also has first the opportunity to interact with a patron), second my data base is accross matches with various decks so whatever effect you are talking about is already included in the numbers. And they have a clear and very obvious message supporting that what has been said by other players before in various threads.

Actually, you select patrons after you learn if you draw first or second. The first player to play also choose one patron first.

That is simply not true for the game I play. You and your opponent first select the 4 patrons and then it is decided who plays first.

I believe the order in which you select patrons corresponds to who goes first.

Hey, still waiting for your advice on patron selection here

AnduinTryggva

Largomets wrote: »

I mean, not be a jerk, but it's a little egotistical to say something is not working for you so THEREFOR it is broken.

There's definitely some scenarios where going first is a benefit. There's other scenarios where going second is a benefit. Learning how to adapt to what your opponent picks and change what patrons you pick based on whether you're first or second, and what they pick, is just as much a part of the game as the game itself.

If they go first and pick black, I'm going to probably pick yellow and green to counter. If I go second and they open with organum, I'm going to pick yellow and orange to counter. Whether I go first or second and what deck they pick to open (or what decks they pick if they go 2) informs my decisions.

My question to you is, are you making these types of decisions, or do you have "your decks" you want to play with no matter what the other person picks and what order you go in? Like, if you're picking psijic and crow every game as an example, regardless of if you go first or second, you have a larger advantage going first, so you're setting your "stats" up for failure. You can't get a meaningful win/lose ratio because you're not changing your play style to adapt to your opponent.

Sorry I don't understand.

There is first the patron selection BEFORE it is decided who can draw first. So how on Earth could I select a specific patron the moment it is known who can deal with the tavern first?

RevJJ

AnduinTryggva wrote: »

Largomets wrote: »

I mean, not be a jerk, but it's a little egotistical to say something is not working for you so THEREFOR it is broken.

There's definitely some scenarios where going first is a benefit. There's other scenarios where going second is a benefit. Learning how to adapt to what your opponent picks and change what patrons you pick based on whether you're first or second, and what they pick, is just as much a part of the game as the game itself.

If they go first and pick black, I'm going to probably pick yellow and green to counter. If I go second and they open with organum, I'm going to pick yellow and orange to counter. Whether I go first or second and what deck they pick to open (or what decks they pick if they go 2) informs my decisions.

My question to you is, are you making these types of decisions, or do you have "your decks" you want to play with no matter what the other person picks and what order you go in? Like, if you're picking psijic and crow every game as an example, regardless of if you go first or second, you have a larger advantage going first, so you're setting your "stats" up for failure. You can't get a meaningful win/lose ratio because you're not changing your play style to adapt to your opponent.

Sorry I don't understand.

There is first the patron selection BEFORE it is decided who can draw first. So how on Earth could I select a specific patron the moment it is known who can deal with the tavern first?

As far as I can tell, the one who picks the first patron is also the one who plays first, unless you’re playing an NPC.

I just played four random matches in a row against the same person, four times they got to pick first and play first and three times they got overpowered cards in the opening tavern. RNG sucks.

Edit: SIX times in a row and SIX times they got to select first. Come on ZOS. I’m starting to think this is some kind of exploit because this amount of RNG is unbelievable.

Skvysh

AnduinTryggva wrote: »

Sorry I don't understand.

There is first the patron selection BEFORE it is decided who can draw first. So how on Earth could I select a specific patron the moment it is known who can deal with the tavern first?

@Heartrage answered your question already.

AnduinTryggva

Skvysh wrote: »

AnduinTryggva wrote: »

Sorry I don't understand.

There is first the patron selection BEFORE it is decided who can draw first. So how on Earth could I select a specific patron the moment it is known who can deal with the tavern first?

@Heartrage answered your question already.

Oh thanks for pointing that out. I missed that post.

I will have to check. I did not observe a specific relationship there.

Dragonnord

It's not about starting first or second, it's about the RNG of the 5 cards on the tavern when the game starts.
 

FrancisCrawford

AnduinTryggva wrote: »

Heartrage wrote: »

AnduinTryggva wrote: »

JJMaxx1980 wrote: »

This doesn’t take into account Patron decisions, which can be chosen based on whether going first or second.

Not quite sure what you mean. Before you know if you will draw first or second the patron selection is done.

And interacting with patrons is first available to both players at the time of their draw (meaning that the first player also has first the opportunity to interact with a patron), second my data base is accross matches with various decks so whatever effect you are talking about is already included in the numbers. And they have a clear and very obvious message supporting that what has been said by other players before in various threads.

Actually, you select patrons after you learn if you draw first or second. The first player to play also choose one patron first.

That is simply not true for the game I play. You and your opponent first select the 4 patrons and then it is decided who plays first.

Are you playing against NPCs or other players?

Tuonra2

Why not include the patron games? I find patron pressure a valuable tool going second.

My feeling is the same about P1 having a massive advantage, though I seem more successful at leveraging the 1 coin advantage turn 1. When I play opponents of similar skill, going first is a huge boon.

My suggestion has been to give P1 a selection of 4 cards in the tavern on turn 1, then P2 gets a brand new choice along with the second best pick of the first 4 cards.