Some Specific Issues With TOT & Specific Solutions to Them

Personofsecrets

Needless to say, if I'm taking time to write here on the forum, that means that I'd rather do that than play TOT. The game comes in waves for me. Sometimes it's fun and other times it's a pain. So I'd like to take this moment to be very specific about changes that could be applied to TOT which, in my opinion, could make the game better.

1. Because of the St. Pelin and Red Eagle power generating starter cards, I feel shoehorned into making Patron selections that aren't personally enjoyable.

I don't like playing games where power matters so much. I can see how some players may find it interesting, but to me it isn't a very elevated way to enjoy a game. While others think "I win through prestige, so I want to generate power," I think "I want to make a strong deck with solid synergies and the win condition will appear by itself."

It is genuinely unfun and aggravating to virtually lose a game because the order that the power generating starter cards showed up in thus giving the opponent additional opportunities to purchase the stronger Tavern cards.

It's understandable that the starter cards should be unique from eachother, so my solution is to make all starter cards generate 1 gold by default, but have combo 3 just like the Sorcerer-King Orgnum starter card.

2. Too often deck improvement for one player accelerates while deck improvement for the other player is a constant.

This issue can happen in a number of ways, and one of them will be the next point, but for this point I'd like to focus on how oppressive the Tavern can be. Far too often one player is buying cards there and able to stretch their resources in order to pick up a just revealed powerful card as their opponent is stuck buying either worse cards or just using the treasury.



This was the tavern from a game I had today. It's the early game and the opponent has 2 Midnight Raids. The game is over. If this type of game were to happen just sometimes, then that would be expected since it's a card game with a luck component, but this type of game happens frequently and is extremly unfun.

My suggestion is that the Tavern become expanded to 7 cards as to better ensure that a variety of strong purchasable cards is available, for both players, the entire game long. And that's coming from someone who prefers games where nobody is buying cards from the Tavern.

3. The balance surrounding a few of the economy cards is way off.

The balance of Luxury Exports, Pounce and Profit/Grand Larceny, and Prescience/Prophesy is so wrong that it is the number one thing that makes me want to lose compusure and be extremly critical of game development. I don't want to be "that person" and I go out of my way to be civil, but these cards are so poorly balanced that it becomes a difficult task to be constructive. The question that comes up is "how don't they know." Well, we are sure that you do know! So what gives?

All of these cards are so efficient at jump boosting an economy in the early game that they are essentially "I win" game pieces even from just the first turn. For anyone who realizes this dynamic of these cards, it can be extremly depressing when the opponent get's that first turn economy booster with zero counterplay options.

The solution that I would prefer for these cards is that it should be a rule in design that no card which can produce more than 2 gold without combo should be able to be purchasable on the first turn with the possibility of the Treasury also being used that same turn. Such rule would demand that Luxury Exports and Prescience/Prophesy become changed. The counter to strong cards is being able to purchase strong cards or permanently improve the deck via the treasury, so my rule would ensure that there aren't games where one player is able to do both of those things while the opponent only get's the option of doing one of those things.

As for Pounce and Profit/Grand Larceny, the cards are simply "cracked." Neither of them should be producing more than 3 gold and that is especially because they inherently answer on board threats while boosting the economy. I understand that these cards could help prevent there from being games were the Rajin patron effect locks people out of the game, but they have created far more oppressive and lopsided games than Bewilderment cards have.

4. Other notes.

So the above is aimed toward having games where there is more genuine back and forth and even interraction between players. There should be less games where one player isn't "able to play" and less games where they continue to "play" even though it is just turn after turn of them losing. A metric that I think developers should be able to look at is number of games conceded. Look at the number, it is way up. I think that it could be good to take into account how many games are conceded because one player genuinely got a game winning advantage on their 3rd turn and use that data as a justification for lowering the concede penalty. And if the worry about the concede penalty is the extra rewards that players could get, isn't it a little late to worry about players "gaming" the reward systems in the game when people have been able to abuse daily crafting writs to amass hundreds of millions of gold for ages? What's it matter if a TOT player get's some extra Pewter Dust? I'd also like to point out that the que timer has been going higher and higher. Sometimes I get matched right away, but I'm also getting one minute all the way up to 4.5 minute que times. Perhaps release TOT for everyone in the game? I also am regularly getting matched with the same players over and over. Sometimes for 3 games in a row (make that 4). It gets tiring.

Anyhow, there are other things about TOT that I could take issue with here or there, but I think that what is outlined above are the most fundamental downsides that I see when playing TOT as well as possible solutions for them. I'm not so shortsighted that I think my way is best or would be without any problems that could pop up, but I also have held back on critique for a long time because I wanted to give the above issues, that is the developers original vision for the game, the benefit of the doubt. I don't want to just assume that I know better, but the scales of my judgement are starting to tip toward the direction that maybe I do know better with regards to some of the game pieces. Again, looking at you Pounce and Profit/Grand Larceny.

And do know, this isn't to say that there aren't fun and compelling games, there definitely are. I'd like their to be more. This isn't to say that the devlopers have done a bad job. I think that they have done a good job and I want them to continue to do a good job by continuing to improve the game.

Psilent

Usually I just turn the 2 starter power cards into 2g writs. To many games where both popped up almost every other turn.

I think the reason your queue times are high is due to you being highly ranked. Checked last night and you were #1. I think the game tries to match you against similar ranked players and then at a certain point just matches you against anyone.

The ranking system is also messed up due to lack of players. If for example you got paired up against me, not ranked in top 100, then you’d lose 150 points. In a game where RNG matters; that sucks. If you win you’d gain 0 points.

I started playing casual unranked more because the queue is shorter.

PinkApple

Just want to say I agree with a lot of what @Personofsecrets has said and have spoken to him a decent bit about the issues with Tribute's current state. He is a super solid player who consistently hits top 3 whenever he pushes for it and has played a ton of the game ^^

Overall I think Tribute is moving in the right direction, but there are still many problems (Particularly at the high end of competitive play) both in the rather swingy game balance and with some of the leaderboard functionality. I'll likely make another post or a video covering my main concerns.

I do very much so still enjoy the game and have faith the developers are listening to our feedback and planning future changes accordingly!

Personofsecrets

Some additional thoughts.....

I've been playing a lot of casual (sorry casual players) and the number one thing I see them not doing is turning their power starter cards into writs of coin. They proceed to struggle with their economy for the entire game. So my proposed change not only removes some of the frustration caused by those cards, but also would help more casual players have more active games.

Grand Larceny gives 5 gold. Let's say you get it with a hand of 4 coins and that can happen as soon as a players 3rd turn. This hypothetical hand is the same as if by that turn of the game, the player already was able to draw 4 writs of coin. That's a lot! So the hand will generate 9 gold. 9 gold is enough to purchase almost every card in the game. 9 gold is also enough gold to purchase many very powerful cards such as Armory, Plunder, or Hlallu Oathman and still be able to use Rajinn's patron button to destroy the opponents economy. The only other cards that produce so much gold on their own cost 7 or more and some of them require combo. So why is Pounce and Profit/Grand Larceny able to be such an outlier with such potential to impact games for just 5 gold cost?

spartaxoxo

I agree with what you wrote here. I find the Pelin deck to be the most frustrating to play against because of how much power some of the early game cards can give. In general I'd like to see the tavern expanded or early game cards reduced in strength so that both opponents more regularly get a chance to build up a strategy, and endgame cards matter more often. A lot of times I don't even get to play them.

One thing I'd like to see is more cards having a significant amount of power shifted to 3 card combos. The reason is that if you get a card that's really strong first turn, you can use a starter card to combo with it, resulting in a huge deficit that your opponent will truly struggle to keep up with if they didn't get that same thing. Meanwhile 3 card combos tend to be less impactful even when they are more powerful, because by the time you can do them both players have the coin and cards to deploy their own strats or try and counter them.

SilverBride

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I find the Pelin deck to be the most frustrating to play against because of how much power some of the early game cards can give.

I find Pelin very frustrating too but for a different reason. The taunt cards all require 4 or 5 coins to remove. If you don't remove them you can't convert power to prestige but using all your power to remove them has basically the same effect of not gaining any prestige. Then they just appear again in the next hand or two and the whole cycle repeats.

I take or remove these cards from the Tavern as I'm able but they should reduce the cost to remove them to 2 or 3 power at the most.

spartaxoxo

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I find the Pelin deck to be the most frustrating to play against because of how much power some of the early game cards can give.

I find Pelin very frustrating too but for a different reason. The taunt cards all require 4 or 5 coins to remove. If you don't remove them you can't convert power to prestige but using all your power to remove them has basically the same effect of not gaining any prestige. Then they just appear again in the next hand or two and the whole cycle repeats.

I take or remove these cards from the Tavern as I'm able but they should reduce the cost to remove them to 2 or 3 power at the most.

I actually kind of wish there was more taunts in this game, actually lol. It can be hard to counteract a snowball from early game lead without them. Well, for me personally. I don't generally like the games where things are too slow and hardly any power is generated, like Rahjiin games can get. But, I also don't like the ones where there's a power rush either, which is the main strat of Pelin. So for me personally, those taunts are a saving grace of the deck and I like their current cost. I feel like those power rush games feel a bit less strategic. That said between the two I dislike, I'd rather a match be too fast for my taste than too long lol.

Personofsecrets

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I find the Pelin deck to be the most frustrating to play against because of how much power some of the early game cards can give.

I find Pelin very frustrating too but for a different reason. The taunt cards all require 4 or 5 coins to remove. If you don't remove them you can't convert power to prestige but using all your power to remove them has basically the same effect of not gaining any prestige. Then they just appear again in the next hand or two and the whole cycle repeats.

I take or remove these cards from the Tavern as I'm able but they should reduce the cost to remove them to 2 or 3 power at the most.

I actually kind of wish there was more taunts in this game, actually lol. It can be hard to counteract a snowball from early game lead without them. Well, for me personally. I don't generally like the games where things are too slow and hardly any power is generated, like Rahjiin games can get. But, I also don't like the ones where there's a power rush either, which is the main strat of Pelin. So for me personally, those taunts are a saving grace of the deck and I like their current cost. I feel like those power rush games feel a bit less strategic. That said between the two I dislike, I'd rather a match be too fast for my taste than too long lol.

I've often found that buying two power generating Pelin cards in the early game is crushing even against decks that are better developed and have stronger synergies.

In other games this is called "burn." Back when I was a kid, it seemed like people generally accepted that burn was less skill intensive, but now there are a bunch of people who like to defend how skillful beating an opponent as fast as possible is. Could we measure skill of running to the post box or doing the laundry? We could, but who cares? I have the same sentiments toward burn.

Necrotech_Master

one of the decks i like using is the rahjin deck, and mostly because of pounce and profit (or the upgrade)

if that shows up and i can grab that on first turn, i will do that, even over converting a starter patron card from pelin/reach decks because +4 or +5 gold basically from turn 3 (2nd turn cycles the other half of your starter deck) makes it really easy to start deck building, and is a great counter to orgnum spam because you can generate a ton of gold so you could flip the patron and continue to deck build

i also agree with your points about the tavern, there needs to either be more cards to choose from or it needs to be auto-recycled every X amount of turns (unsure what would provide good game balance, but if neither player is able to pick cards from the tavern the game stagnates) (or like your example where you had a bad tavern and the opponent already had 2 midnight raids, basically a game ender)

Personofsecrets

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

i also agree with your points about the tavern, there needs to either be more cards to choose from or it needs to be auto-recycled every X amount of turns (unsure what would provide good game balance, but if neither player is able to pick cards from the tavern the game stagnates) (or like your example where you had a bad tavern and the opponent already had 2 midnight raids, basically a game ender)

The game has definitely grown to a point higher ranked players are more willing to make tavern purchases and have an active game. I noticed this when facing off against one of them and thinking that "they are making their deck worse by buying too much." In reality, I think that they were just trying to reveal a powerful card so that they could improve their deck in a scenario where my deck was a little better than theirs.

That's what happened in the game that I posted the screenshot from. The opponent got a first turn Raid, so I was already in trouble somewhat. I decided to purchase tavern contracts as a way to try and make something happen. Unfortunately I revealed for the opponent another Midnight Raid. But choice was an illusion from the moment that they purchased the first raid while the rest of the tavern was not that great.

Necrotech_Master

Personofsecrets wrote: »

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

i also agree with your points about the tavern, there needs to either be more cards to choose from or it needs to be auto-recycled every X amount of turns (unsure what would provide good game balance, but if neither player is able to pick cards from the tavern the game stagnates) (or like your example where you had a bad tavern and the opponent already had 2 midnight raids, basically a game ender)

The game has definitely grown to a point higher ranked players are more willing to make tavern purchases and have an active game. I noticed this when facing off against one of them and thinking that "they are making their deck worse by buying too much." In reality, I think that they were just trying to reveal a powerful card so that they could improve their deck in a scenario where my deck was a little better than theirs.

That's what happened in the game that I posted the screenshot from. The opponent got a first turn Raid, so I was already in trouble somewhat. I decided to purchase tavern contracts as a way to try and make something happen. Unfortunately I revealed for the opponent another Midnight Raid. But choice was an illusion from the moment that they purchased the first raid while the rest of the tavern was not that great.

yeah that sounds like poor luck from the start then

i havent played against players pretty much at all, only npcs, but still have run into similar situations against npcs and why i sometimes can lose to a novice one when luck of the draw plus a tough tavern is in play, i usually end up letting the npc take cards to start refreshing the tavern because they will make worse decisions

WitchyKiki

The way this game is currently built opens too much opportunity for griefing and trolling other players, I've had matches where the other player holds all the cards, refuses to pick up any power cards, even skips playing power cards, and prolongs the game unnecessarily for their own amusement. As a counter, I just sit on the clock when people do that instead of conceding. Thats just hateful and not part of the game to hold your opponent hostage. They should make it that after a certain amount of turns, the game finishes automatically.

Some players sour the game for those who just want to play and enjoy it, and theres the other players that send hate mail. I've received all sorts of insults on PMs, regardless if I'm losing or winning. All the slurs and words you can think of, I report these players and yet I see them still playing the game. Now, if I want to play TOT competitive I have to go offline so I can have a quiet experience.

Theres also the lack of balance on decks, how some decks you must pick up when they come up, or else it's an instant loss. The tavern is not fluid, it should update at least the last card to make the tavern more dynamic. Some cards like crow really need a nerf, picking up just 3 good crow cards is an instant win. Besides, its very boring to take 15 seconds playing your turn while your opponent is sitting there cycling their whole deck and taking the whole timer. I have no problem with good players handing me my ass, I have a problem with the braindead tactics that crow provides.

I love the game, truly one of my favorite card games and I've spent hours and hours on it, even hit the leaderboard briefly a couple of times. But the way is set up just causes too much grief to even be considered a competitive card game.

Necrotech_Master

WitchyKiki wrote: »

I love the game, truly one of my favorite card games and I've spent hours and hours on it, even hit the leaderboard briefly a couple of times. But the way is set up just causes too much grief to even be considered a competitive card game.

its hard to find games that cannot be griefed, even games played in the real world are griefed (see all the recent controversy in the chess world)

its just easier to grief an online game because of anonymity