My Tales of Tribute Account is RUINED - Make Sure Not to RUIN Yours

Personofsecrets

I want to be crystal clear. My Tales of Tribute account is ruined from a competitive perspective.

How is it that one ruins their account you may wonder?

Well, there is one simple straight foward trick that will drastically lower your competitive chances in TOT and, yes, as of today it's permanent.

I'm talking about card upgrades. You know, those clues that you get and then go search for.

WARNING: ONCE YOU UPGRADE A CARD BY FINDING A CLUE, THAT ACTION CANNOT BE UNDONE AND YOU WILL FOREVER LIVE WITH THE CONSEQUENCES.

You may not be aware, but there is stategic advantages (real or imagined it does not matter) that some decks give to the first player or second player.

For example, a strong first player Patron choice is Celarus.

A strong second player Patron choice CAN BE druid.

Notice the can be. That is a qualifier. It's a qualifier that all has to do with card upgrades.

If you upgrade Runes of the Draoife to Vestments of the Druid King, then you will suffer competitive consequences if you are trying to go for Draoife Ritecaller or Eldertide Fenwitch chances as the second player.

Sure, you still get these 6 cost options as second player, but you are giving the opponent chances to buy one of the most powerful cards in the game, the 2 cost Vestments of the Druid King which is a monumentally stronger version of Runes of the Draoife.

Again, the kicker is that you don't have to give the opponent Vestments of the Druid King chances because you can just chose to never upgrade Runes of the Draoife. But if you don't have this forsight ahead of progressing your game, and let's be honest, progressing achievements does at first seem to be game progression without negative consequences, then you will likely upgrade your Runes of the Draoife, as I did, and permanently undermine your competitive chances in TOT.

I have lost A NUMBER of games because the first player chose Celarus as they should, I tried to go for a 6 cost power card, and the opponent found a revealed Vestments of the Druid King. Sometimes the card has been nice and ready for them to buy on the first turn.

It's absolutely rediculous that we cannot chose which version of the card morphs we want to use for our decks.

There should be a menu that let's us setup 1st player and 2nd player decks to our liking.

At the very least, let us just chose a morph for all games. But really, we should be able to make a 1st player and 2nd player setup for every Patron.

Don't RUIN your competitive experience.

Trust me, if you ever get serious about TOT, then this nasty little surprise becomes a huge slap in the face.

CAREFULLY UPGRADE YOUR CARDS. DON'T LEAVE AN UGLY SCAR ON YOUR ACCOUNT.

That is all.

Thank you.

GCJ_

I like the idea of having preferences/togglable options/saved settings for 1st and 2nd position regarding card upgrades. If we can have it with skills in our build slots, then it most certainly can be applied to something less complex. Use of a respec-scroll type of consumable to get back the applied upgrade, or buy it back for an increment amount of gold like at a shrine. Or create an entirely new interface for the card game that has its own menu tree with customizable options, and maybe even give it its own server with a matchmaking lobby to eliminate disconnects caused by other non-tribute related issues and bugs.

Kappachi

This isn't a TCG deckbuilder, when you upgrade the card it benefits both players for whoever finds it, really you aren't losing any competitive advantage there's just better cards on board and the players who know how to use them will grab the cards that will make them win the game.

Personofsecrets

Kappachi wrote: »

This isn't a TCG deckbuilder, when you upgrade the card it benefits both players for whoever finds it, really you aren't losing any competitive advantage there's just better cards on board and the players who know how to use them will grab the cards that will make them win the game.

This is completely the incorrect way of viewing the game. It disappoints me that there can be such a fundamental misunderstanding.

Player 1 and 2 both have unique advantages.

Player 1 gets the first chance of buying cards.

Player 2 gets more gold on their first turn.

These game aspects create unique opportunities for both players.

This is especially the case for opening options regarding the Druid King deck.

Druid King Vestments, Wispheart Totem, and Envoy of the Draoife are all optional upgrades with relevant 1st turn play.

Hugely important lines of play can involve a commonly picked Patron, Red Eagle, for instance.

Because of how the Red Eagle starter card, War Drum, was designed, if player 1 draws it, then they can't reach 5 gold on their first turn.

That means that they wouldn't be able to make plays such as buying Envoy of the Draoife or Wishphear Totem plus Writ of Coin on their first turn 50% of the time.

Player 2 can capitalize on this dynamic because they are guaranteed to be able to reach 5 gold on their first turn under any current conditions.

On top of that, player 2 always has chances of getting up to 6 gold on their first turn.

These possibilities have large impacts on the games flow and who can secure the out of the gate advantage that they need to prevail.

Druid King can be a very solid option for the 2nd player.

But such choice can be undermined by Druid King Vestments because of how overly powerful that card is and the fact that player 1 will always be able to have the first chance of buying that card.

And, as alluded to in the original post, a savvy player 1 who has picked Celarus would love to find that Druid King Vestments and make a winning deck with just a few cards.

Although part of this story is that Druid King Vestments is too powerful, the bigger part of the story is about choice.

Not getting how big of a factor these early game choices can be gets very close to just not respecting the game.

And let's talk about "tcg deckbuilders."

I'll just passingly mention the irony of Tales of Tribute being a deck building game.

I've played all kinds of games.

Tales of Tribute is like many other deck building games which comes with expansions.

Expansions can add many new and strategic options to pre-existing deck building games.

And it is up to the host to decide what expansions, if any, will be used.

So while Tales of Tribute isn't a "tcg deckbuilder," it is perfectly in line to see how players can and should have more choice when it comes to the cards that they want to play with.

If this was a physical game, then the host would obviously have choice of excluding Druid King Vestments in favor of more copies of Runes of the Draoife if they so wished.

I'm not asking for something unheard of.

In fact, I'm asking for something practical that betters the overall game.

AnduinTryggva

Mh. I think it does not matter if you upgrade or not. As long as your opponent upgrades his you are forced to play with the upgrades.

Personofsecrets

AnduinTryggva wrote: »

Mh. I think it does not matter if you upgrade or not. As long as your opponent upgrades his you are forced to play with the upgrades.

Opponent chooses decks A & B
Player chooses decks C & D

The tavern will be composed of A & B as they exist from the opponents collection as well as C & D as they exist from the player collection.

So yes, it does matter for strategizing.

Necrotech_Master

my only want for the card upgrades is not be forced to pvp to get them

i definitely want to get all of them though

and yes i realize that when you upgrade, you are also giving your opponents the upgraded card too

Kappachi

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

my only want for the card upgrades is not be forced to pvp to get them

i definitely want to get all of them though

and yes i realize that when you upgrade, you are also giving your opponents the upgraded card too

It's an MMO, you're meant to interact with other players, being forced to PvP is good for the health of the game.

Necrotech_Master

Kappachi wrote: »

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

my only want for the card upgrades is not be forced to pvp to get them

i definitely want to get all of them though

and yes i realize that when you upgrade, you are also giving your opponents the upgraded card too

It's an MMO, you're meant to interact with other players, being forced to PvP is good for the health of the game.

ive done a whole 13 pvp tribute matches since the system was released, and only to get the card upgrades

i still havent done the last card upgrade for almalexia deck yet because i dont enjoy the pvp tribute

Personofsecrets

I'll never be finishing the TOT Almalexia achievements since I don't want to further ruin my collection for competitive play!

Reverb

Ok

LunaFlora

you are limiting yourself for a pretty weird reason
it's just some cards in a game

spartaxoxo

Druid King Vestment is just a balance issue of a particular card. The same is true of the power starter cards. The current system better ensures that everyone is able to use upgrades and new decks eventually because both sides have access to them. So, I don't agree it should change.

Personofsecrets

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Druid King Vestment is just a balance issue of a particular card. The same is true of the power starter cards. The current system better ensures that everyone is able to use upgrades and new decks eventually because both sides have access to them. So, I don't agree it should change.

And what is the supporting evidence to show that people who do want to progress things like collection and achievements should be shoehorned into only using a specific set of cards.

Furthermore, for players such as myself, yes there are others who would like this option, what is the supporting evidence that shows why we shouldn't have access to cards that we originally did have and use?

spartaxoxo

Card upgrades don't remove the original card, so you maintain access. Nobody loses cards by upgrading. They add additional cards. The overall health of the game (players able to understand and use all of the cards) to me is more important than allowing someone to tweak odds in their favor before the start of the match.

In fact, I personally think they should be discouraging players from obsessing about going first or second by removing as many things that influence that being a significant difference as possible. Ideally, there'd be very little difference between going first or second.

Personofsecrets

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Card upgrades don't remove the original card, so you maintain access. Nobody loses cards by upgrading. They add additional cards. The overall health of the game (players able to understand and use all of the cards) to me is more important than allowing someone to tweak odds in their favor before the start of the match.

That is incorrect. In the past I had access to multiple Runes of the Draoife when picking Druid. Now that option is totally gone and the strategy that I prefer to invoke is inhibited because a Runes of the Draoife has been replaced with 2 Druid King Vestments.

I can no longer choose to play with just 2 Runes of the Draoife. Maybe this doesn't matter to some players, but I can ensure you through my personal TOT experience that this type of option does matter and other players have expressed this similar feeling about having more control over what cards make up their decks.

My response to your suggestion regarding assisting the understanding of new players is that your suggestion is good. I cover this idea in my master thread linked below. Ultimately, the game does a bad job at introducing players higher level play. I could say that my alternative for the card selection process could help players become more interested in exploring the possibilities of the different Patrongs, but ultimately, there is no reason to see things as a dichotomy where we an improved card selection process OR improved system for instructing players.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/640875/evaluating-the-2023-state-of-the-game-and-suggestions#latest

There can be multiple improvements to the game at the same time. If you have further suggestions as to why a system with more options is inferior or not worth it, then I'm interested in hearing them.

And do note, as more cards are released and further possibilities of card synergies come into existence, then my idea of a card morph picking system becomes all the more interesting and full of possibilities.

spartaxoxo

Personofsecrets wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Card upgrades don't remove the original card, so you maintain access. Nobody loses cards by upgrading. They add additional cards. The overall health of the game (players able to understand and use all of the cards) to me is more important than allowing someone to tweak odds in their favor before the start of the match.

That is incorrect. In the past I had access to multiple Runes of the Draoife when picking Druid. Now that option is totally gone and the strategy that I prefer to invoke is inhibited because a Runes of the Draoife has been replaced with 2 Druid King Vestments.

I can no longer choose to play with just 2 Runes of the Draoife. Maybe this doesn't matter to some players, but I can ensure you through my personal TOT experience that this type of option does matter and other players have expressed this similar feeling about having more control over what cards make up their decks.

My response to your suggestion regarding assisting the understanding of new players is that your suggestion is good. I cover this idea in my master thread linked below. Ultimately, the game does a bad job at introducing players higher level play. I could say that my alternative for the card selection process could help players become more interested in exploring the possibilities of the different Patrongs, but ultimately, there is no reason to see things as a dichotomy where we an improved card selection process OR improved system for instructing players.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/640875/evaluating-the-2023-state-of-the-game-and-suggestions#latest

There can be multiple improvements to the game at the same time. If you have further suggestions as to why a system with more options is inferior or not worth it, then I'm interested in hearing them.

And do note, as more cards are released and further possibilities of card synergies come into existence, then my idea of a card morph picking system becomes all the more interesting and full of possibilities.

You can still play Runes of the Draiofe so you can still use it. Less often isn't the same thing as not having access anymore.

While I do think there could be some more tutorial content, I did add an edit while you were responding. Essentially, I don't think people should be encouraged to make decisions based off first or second player because the differences between those should be as limited as possible.

Personofsecrets

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Essentially, I don't think people should be encouraged to make decisions based off first or second player because the differences between those should be as limited as possible.

Can you think of a way to make that ideal possible? It doesn't seem possible.

spartaxoxo

Personofsecrets wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Essentially, I don't think people should be encouraged to make decisions based off first or second player because the differences between those should be as limited as possible.

Can you think of a way to make that ideal possible? It doesn't seem possible.

I don't think the perfect state is achievable but I think there's things they can do to get closer.

One change from the current way things work would be to change the starting cards so they're always 1 coin eater than having some grant power.

GCJ_

Personofsecrets wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Essentially, I don't think people should be encouraged to make decisions based off first or second player because the differences between those should be as limited as possible.

Can you think of a way to make that ideal possible? It doesn't seem possible.

I have suggested in another post (regarding the broken coin flip) to make ranked matches a 2-game mini series where the deck choices remain the same but who plays 1st alternates. This would create the situation where the players are making their deck choices with the understanding they will play as both the 1st AND 2nd position, one time for each, and that their opponent made their choices with the same understanding. This makes the current state of the game balanced and fair regarding all the advantages and disadvantages to date, proven and theoretical, as well as possible future states as the game continues to evolve. The equalization of the same opportunities can only be had when the players switch sides at least once between an even number of games, 2 being the minimum. This would also curb players from quitting as it would make the forfeit a 2 game loss even if they won the first game because they are forfeiting the match, because, you know......quitters never win lol. Making the 2-game series an option to select from the ToT menu in the activity finder commits the player to 2 consecutive games against the same opponent upon entering the match-making queue, with locking their patron selections for both games (knowing they will switch positions after the first game) the only condition. Of course this means your patrons will relocate on the table layout accordingly. Going 1st 50% of the time can and will be the only guarantee here. Make of that what you will.

Personofsecrets

GCJ_ wrote: »

Personofsecrets wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Essentially, I don't think people should be encouraged to make decisions based off first or second player because the differences between those should be as limited as possible.

Can you think of a way to make that ideal possible? It doesn't seem possible.

I have suggested in another post (regarding the broken coin flip) to make ranked matches a 2-game mini series where the deck choices remain the same but who plays 1st alternates. This would create the situation where the players are making their deck choices with the understanding they will play as both the 1st AND 2nd position, one time for each, and that their opponent made their choices with the same understanding. This makes the current state of the game balanced and fair regarding all the advantages and disadvantages to date, proven and theoretical, as well as possible future states as the game continues to evolve. The equalization of the same opportunities can only be had when the players switch sides at least once between an even number of games, 2 being the minimum. This would also curb players from quitting as it would make the forfeit a 2 game loss even if they won the first game because they are forfeiting the match, because, you know......quitters never win lol. Making the 2-game series an option to select from the ToT menu in the activity finder commits the player to 2 consecutive games against the same opponent upon entering the match-making queue, with locking their patron selections for both games (knowing they will switch positions after the first game) the only condition. Of course this means your patrons will relocate on the table layout accordingly. Going 1st 50% of the time can and will be the only guarantee here. Make of that what you will.

That's an interesting idea which could possibly promote more highly skilled outcomes. We should still want better card balance as well since if player A buys Busted card on turn 1, but player B doesn't find Busted card in their turn 1 tavern, then player A has to do alot less work to win their 1st turn game than player B has to do to win theirs.

GCJ_

If there truly is RNG involved in the tavern draw, then card balances aren't going to have an effect on the tavern's 1st turn community. Or any turn. You shouldn't expect exact starts in consecutive games that have a random draw element feature to it. What if the tavern's first turn offerings were all treasury cards? Or all the same card? No amount of card balance will undo whatever curse has befallen on you or your opponent. Thats not to say that there aren't any adjustments needed, just that it shouldn't effect the game in that manner. If it really is all random.....

loosej

I'm trying very hard OP, but I just don't see the issue. You aren't giving anyone an advantage or disadvantage by having upgraded cards. Rng might put you in such a situation sometimes, but 50% of the time your opponent should be the one in that position.

You're probably just using it as an example, but the fact that you keep going on about Runes of the Draoife makes it sound like you're trying to use a single strategy every time, which is a bad idea. Going first or second changes how you should approach the match, and so do the decks chosen by your opponent. What if you hadn't upgraded your Runes but your opponent had? You don't have control over their decks.

I also think that the cards shuffled in the deck are a mix of your cards and your opponent's. So if you have an upgraded card and your opponent a non-upgraded one, the deck contains both no matter who chooses the patron. I could be wrong on this though so someone correct me if that's the case.

@GCJ_ I like your idea of the 2-game matches, but only if zos decides to lower the initial turn timers. Having 90 seconds per turn from the very start, and a lot of players (ab)using that, is the reason I barely play ranked anymore, and since the changes in last patch I even prefer the npc's. Double matches could end up lasting for an hour, and the rewards we get from playing just aren't worth it.

Personofsecrets

loosej wrote: »

I'm trying very hard OP, but I just don't see the issue. You aren't giving anyone an advantage or disadvantage by having upgraded cards. Rng might put you in such a situation sometimes, but 50% of the time your opponent should be the one in that position.

You're probably just using it as an example, but the fact that you keep going on about Runes of the Draoife makes it sound like you're trying to use a single strategy every time, which is a bad idea. Going first or second changes how you should approach the match, and so do the decks chosen by your opponent. What if you hadn't upgraded your Runes but your opponent had? You don't have control over their decks.

I also think that the cards shuffled in the deck are a mix of your cards and your opponent's. So if you have an upgraded card and your opponent a non-upgraded one, the deck contains both no matter who chooses the patron. I could be wrong on this though so someone correct me if that's the case.

@GCJ_ I like your idea of the 2-game matches, but only if zos decides to lower the initial turn timers. Having 90 seconds per turn from the very start, and a lot of players (ab)using that, is the reason I barely play ranked anymore, and since the changes in last patch I even prefer the npc's. Double matches could end up lasting for an hour, and the rewards we get from playing just aren't worth it.

Many incorrect notions here.

1st player and 2nd player have unique advantages base on what cards they are able to buy. This is indisuptable. A number of players understand this fact and utilize it to their own advantage. You seem to realize this. If you do realize this fact, then the concept of selective card morphing assisting with gaining certain strategic advantages should be totally undisputable.

Furthermore, I can assure you that I employ any available strategy which seems like it may win. My suggestion of allowing players to pick between card morphs would further increase the options that all players have access to.

Druid King Vestments is Signigantly more powerful than Runes of the Draoife. So although I can gain some advantages by picking Druid King as player 2, I also am giving the opponent a siginifigant advantage in first choice of Druid King Vestments if it is available on the first turn.

That is what this protest is about. The game encourages collecting cards to have achievements, but strategically speaking there are consequences for collecting cards.

While the tavern deck is a mix of both players cards, I can speak authoritatively that the content of the tavern also depends on who chose which deck. If I have all non-upgraded Druid King cards and am the one to pick Druid King, then the tavern deck will be compiled based on my Druid King collection even if the opponent has morphed all of the Druid King cards. In that case, there would be no Druid King Vestments, Wispheart Totems, or Envoy of the Draoife.

Sure, if the opponent had been the one to pick Druid King, then the contents of the tavern deck would be the morphed versions. But this post isn't about what opponents could hypothetically do. The post is about increasing the options that anyone has access to and not punishing progression of achievements.

ZOS_Volpe

Hello all,

After removing a few posts that were non-constructive and baiting, we would like everyone to keep posts on the subject at hand, civil, and constructive.

Thank you for your understanding.

GCJ_

loosej wrote: »

@GCJ_ I like your idea of the 2-game matches, but only if zos decides to lower the initial turn timers. Having 90 seconds per turn from the very start, and a lot of players (ab)using that, is the reason I barely play ranked anymore, and since the changes in last patch I even prefer the npc's. Double matches could end up lasting for an hour, and the rewards we get from playing just aren't worth it.

I don't think that playing the almelexia deck is possible under that condition, especially in late game when, if you have the cards, you get your maxed out donate all to hell one at a time with a confine per donation combo. The animation time between each selection confirmation to discard and draw and the draw pile cycling shuffles already overlap the turn time. Animations which cannot be skipped or rushed in any way to let you do anything else after the combo ends like spending any of the gold or power accumulated this way. And this is with anticipating such situation by blindly auto confirming each donation, or spamming the x button during the discard and draw animation because confirming no selection doesn't necessarily end the full combo string the first, second, or umpteenth time it pops up. Not picking the patron at deck selection or not playing the cards doesn't keep you from having to wait on your opponent when they get theirs going regardless if they are as fast or faster than your play speed. You both are at the mercy of a god that has shown to have none for those who oppose her, or even think to, including her mortal followers that don't possess any power or otherwise pose a threat to her or anything she values, when she is chosen as one of the patrons by either player. She doesn't take sides, upgraded cards or not. No, you will do this her way, one calculated decision at a divine time, or not at all as there are countless other roisters proven to be just as deserving to be her proxy in a tribute match ready to take your place, even kill for that matter.

ESO_player123

Personofsecrets wrote: »

loosej wrote: »

I'm trying very hard OP, but I just don't see the issue. You aren't giving anyone an advantage or disadvantage by having upgraded cards. Rng might put you in such a situation sometimes, but 50% of the time your opponent should be the one in that position.

You're probably just using it as an example, but the fact that you keep going on about Runes of the Draoife makes it sound like you're trying to use a single strategy every time, which is a bad idea. Going first or second changes how you should approach the match, and so do the decks chosen by your opponent. What if you hadn't upgraded your Runes but your opponent had? You don't have control over their decks.

I also think that the cards shuffled in the deck are a mix of your cards and your opponent's. So if you have an upgraded card and your opponent a non-upgraded one, the deck contains both no matter who chooses the patron. I could be wrong on this though so someone correct me if that's the case.

@GCJ_ I like your idea of the 2-game matches, but only if zos decides to lower the initial turn timers. Having 90 seconds per turn from the very start, and a lot of players (ab)using that, is the reason I barely play ranked anymore, and since the changes in last patch I even prefer the npc's. Double matches could end up lasting for an hour, and the rewards we get from playing just aren't worth it.

Many incorrect notions here.
-snip

While the tavern deck is a mix of both players cards, I can speak authoritatively that the content of the tavern also depends on who chose which deck. If I have all non-upgraded Druid King cards and am the one to pick Druid King, then the tavern deck will be compiled based on my Druid King collection even if the opponent has morphed all of the Druid King cards. In that case, there would be no Druid King Vestments, Wispheart Totems, or Envoy of the Draoife.
.

How would you explain this then? I have all cards in all decks upgraded, and the opponent chose the Crow deck.

Personofsecrets

ESO_player123 wrote: »

Personofsecrets wrote: »

loosej wrote: »

I'm trying very hard OP, but I just don't see the issue. You aren't giving anyone an advantage or disadvantage by having upgraded cards. Rng might put you in such a situation sometimes, but 50% of the time your opponent should be the one in that position.

You're probably just using it as an example, but the fact that you keep going on about Runes of the Draoife makes it sound like you're trying to use a single strategy every time, which is a bad idea. Going first or second changes how you should approach the match, and so do the decks chosen by your opponent. What if you hadn't upgraded your Runes but your opponent had? You don't have control over their decks.

I also think that the cards shuffled in the deck are a mix of your cards and your opponent's. So if you have an upgraded card and your opponent a non-upgraded one, the deck contains both no matter who chooses the patron. I could be wrong on this though so someone correct me if that's the case.

@GCJ_ I like your idea of the 2-game matches, but only if zos decides to lower the initial turn timers. Having 90 seconds per turn from the very start, and a lot of players (ab)using that, is the reason I barely play ranked anymore, and since the changes in last patch I even prefer the npc's. Double matches could end up lasting for an hour, and the rewards we get from playing just aren't worth it.

Many incorrect notions here.
-snip

While the tavern deck is a mix of both players cards, I can speak authoritatively that the content of the tavern also depends on who chose which deck. If I have all non-upgraded Druid King cards and am the one to pick Druid King, then the tavern deck will be compiled based on my Druid King collection even if the opponent has morphed all of the Druid King cards. In that case, there would be no Druid King Vestments, Wispheart Totems, or Envoy of the Draoife.
.

How would you explain this then? I have all cards in all decks upgraded, and the opponent chose the Crow deck.

Explain what? That there is a Toll of Flesh and Toll of Silver.

If that morph is what you are commenting on, then don't you think that it is possible for the opponent to have the upgraded Toll as part of their collection? If I remember correctly, Toll of Silver is a morph that is eventually unlocked from just playing TOT, so it wouldn't be a rare morph for players to have.

Again, if the opponent chose a deck, then it doesn't matter what your collection is with respect to that deck.

ESO_player123

Personofsecrets wrote: »

ESO_player123 wrote: »

Personofsecrets wrote: »

loosej wrote: »

I'm trying very hard OP, but I just don't see the issue. You aren't giving anyone an advantage or disadvantage by having upgraded cards. Rng might put you in such a situation sometimes, but 50% of the time your opponent should be the one in that position.

You're probably just using it as an example, but the fact that you keep going on about Runes of the Draoife makes it sound like you're trying to use a single strategy every time, which is a bad idea. Going first or second changes how you should approach the match, and so do the decks chosen by your opponent. What if you hadn't upgraded your Runes but your opponent had? You don't have control over their decks.

I also think that the cards shuffled in the deck are a mix of your cards and your opponent's. So if you have an upgraded card and your opponent a non-upgraded one, the deck contains both no matter who chooses the patron. I could be wrong on this though so someone correct me if that's the case.

@GCJ_ I like your idea of the 2-game matches, but only if zos decides to lower the initial turn timers. Having 90 seconds per turn from the very start, and a lot of players (ab)using that, is the reason I barely play ranked anymore, and since the changes in last patch I even prefer the npc's. Double matches could end up lasting for an hour, and the rewards we get from playing just aren't worth it.

Many incorrect notions here.
-snip

While the tavern deck is a mix of both players cards, I can speak authoritatively that the content of the tavern also depends on who chose which deck. If I have all non-upgraded Druid King cards and am the one to pick Druid King, then the tavern deck will be compiled based on my Druid King collection even if the opponent has morphed all of the Druid King cards. In that case, there would be no Druid King Vestments, Wispheart Totems, or Envoy of the Draoife.
.

How would you explain this then? I have all cards in all decks upgraded, and the opponent chose the Crow deck.

Explain what? That there is a Toll of Flesh and Toll of Silver.

If that morph is what you are commenting on, then don't you think that it is possible for the opponent to have the upgraded Toll as part of their collection? If I remember correctly, Toll of Silver is a morph that is eventually unlocked from just playing TOT, so it wouldn't be a rare morph for players to have.

Again, if the opponent chose a deck, then it doesn't matter what your collection is with respect to that deck.

I have a question based on your answer:
If I upgraded a card, say Toll of Flesh to Toll of Silver, does Toll of Silver COMPLETELY replace the Flesh version in my deck or will they both exist alongside each other? From the word 'upgrade' I thought that if I got Toll of Silver then I lost Tall of Flesh.

I'm asking because you said "don't you think that it is possible for the opponent to have the upgraded Toll as part of their collection". If they have the upgraded version and I have the upgraded version, where did Toll of Flesh come from? That would only be possible if the basic cards are not completely replaced with the upgraded ones.

Personofsecrets

ESO_player123 wrote: »

Personofsecrets wrote: »

ESO_player123 wrote: »

Personofsecrets wrote: »

loosej wrote: »

I'm trying very hard OP, but I just don't see the issue. You aren't giving anyone an advantage or disadvantage by having upgraded cards. Rng might put you in such a situation sometimes, but 50% of the time your opponent should be the one in that position.

You're probably just using it as an example, but the fact that you keep going on about Runes of the Draoife makes it sound like you're trying to use a single strategy every time, which is a bad idea. Going first or second changes how you should approach the match, and so do the decks chosen by your opponent. What if you hadn't upgraded your Runes but your opponent had? You don't have control over their decks.

I also think that the cards shuffled in the deck are a mix of your cards and your opponent's. So if you have an upgraded card and your opponent a non-upgraded one, the deck contains both no matter who chooses the patron. I could be wrong on this though so someone correct me if that's the case.

@GCJ_ I like your idea of the 2-game matches, but only if zos decides to lower the initial turn timers. Having 90 seconds per turn from the very start, and a lot of players (ab)using that, is the reason I barely play ranked anymore, and since the changes in last patch I even prefer the npc's. Double matches could end up lasting for an hour, and the rewards we get from playing just aren't worth it.

Many incorrect notions here.
-snip

While the tavern deck is a mix of both players cards, I can speak authoritatively that the content of the tavern also depends on who chose which deck. If I have all non-upgraded Druid King cards and am the one to pick Druid King, then the tavern deck will be compiled based on my Druid King collection even if the opponent has morphed all of the Druid King cards. In that case, there would be no Druid King Vestments, Wispheart Totems, or Envoy of the Draoife.
.

How would you explain this then? I have all cards in all decks upgraded, and the opponent chose the Crow deck.

Explain what? That there is a Toll of Flesh and Toll of Silver.

If that morph is what you are commenting on, then don't you think that it is possible for the opponent to have the upgraded Toll as part of their collection? If I remember correctly, Toll of Silver is a morph that is eventually unlocked from just playing TOT, so it wouldn't be a rare morph for players to have.

Again, if the opponent chose a deck, then it doesn't matter what your collection is with respect to that deck.

I have a question based on your answer:
If I upgraded a card, say Toll of Flesh to Toll of Silver, does Toll of Silver COMPLETELY replace the Flesh version in my deck or will they both exist alongside each other? From the word 'upgrade' I thought that if I got Toll of Silver then I lost Tall of Flesh.

I'm asking because you said "don't you think that it is possible for the opponent to have the upgraded Toll as part of their collection". If they have the upgraded version and I have the upgraded version, where did Toll of Flesh come from? That would only be possible if the basic cards are not completely replaced with the upgraded ones.

No, if you have the upgraded Toll of Silver, then Toll of Flesh isn't completely replaced. I can't say how many Tolls of Flesh are available originally, but after getting the Toll of Silver upgrade, you will always bring 2 Tolls of Silver and 2 Tolls of Flesh to the Tavern when you select the Crow Patron.

In the case of Runes of the Draoife and Vestments of the Druid King, when one upgrades Runes, then their Druid deck will go from always having 2 Runes of the Draoife to awlays having 1 Runes of the Draoife and 2 Vestments of the Druid King.

ESO_player123

Personofsecrets wrote: »

ESO_player123 wrote: »

Personofsecrets wrote: »

ESO_player123 wrote: »

Personofsecrets wrote: »

loosej wrote: »

I'm trying very hard OP, but I just don't see the issue. You aren't giving anyone an advantage or disadvantage by having upgraded cards. Rng might put you in such a situation sometimes, but 50% of the time your opponent should be the one in that position.

You're probably just using it as an example, but the fact that you keep going on about Runes of the Draoife makes it sound like you're trying to use a single strategy every time, which is a bad idea. Going first or second changes how you should approach the match, and so do the decks chosen by your opponent. What if you hadn't upgraded your Runes but your opponent had? You don't have control over their decks.

I also think that the cards shuffled in the deck are a mix of your cards and your opponent's. So if you have an upgraded card and your opponent a non-upgraded one, the deck contains both no matter who chooses the patron. I could be wrong on this though so someone correct me if that's the case.

@GCJ_ I like your idea of the 2-game matches, but only if zos decides to lower the initial turn timers. Having 90 seconds per turn from the very start, and a lot of players (ab)using that, is the reason I barely play ranked anymore, and since the changes in last patch I even prefer the npc's. Double matches could end up lasting for an hour, and the rewards we get from playing just aren't worth it.

Many incorrect notions here.
-snip

While the tavern deck is a mix of both players cards, I can speak authoritatively that the content of the tavern also depends on who chose which deck. If I have all non-upgraded Druid King cards and am the one to pick Druid King, then the tavern deck will be compiled based on my Druid King collection even if the opponent has morphed all of the Druid King cards. In that case, there would be no Druid King Vestments, Wispheart Totems, or Envoy of the Draoife.
.

How would you explain this then? I have all cards in all decks upgraded, and the opponent chose the Crow deck.

Explain what? That there is a Toll of Flesh and Toll of Silver.

If that morph is what you are commenting on, then don't you think that it is possible for the opponent to have the upgraded Toll as part of their collection? If I remember correctly, Toll of Silver is a morph that is eventually unlocked from just playing TOT, so it wouldn't be a rare morph for players to have.

Again, if the opponent chose a deck, then it doesn't matter what your collection is with respect to that deck.

I have a question based on your answer:
If I upgraded a card, say Toll of Flesh to Toll of Silver, does Toll of Silver COMPLETELY replace the Flesh version in my deck or will they both exist alongside each other? From the word 'upgrade' I thought that if I got Toll of Silver then I lost Tall of Flesh.

I'm asking because you said "don't you think that it is possible for the opponent to have the upgraded Toll as part of their collection". If they have the upgraded version and I have the upgraded version, where did Toll of Flesh come from? That would only be possible if the basic cards are not completely replaced with the upgraded ones.

No, if you have the upgraded Toll of Silver, then Toll of Flesh isn't completely replaced. I can't say how many Tolls of Flesh are available originally, but after getting the Toll of Silver upgrade, you will always bring 2 Tolls of Silver and 2 Tolls of Flesh to the Tavern when you select the Crow Patron.

In the case of Runes of the Draoife and Vestments of the Druid King, when one upgrades Runes, then their Druid deck will go from always having 2 Runes of the Draoife to awlays having 1 Runes of the Draoife and 2 Vestments of the Druid King.

Well, if that is the case, then the words "Card upgrade" are misleading. It should be "Deck Upgrade". If I'm upgrading my seat to first class, or my membership from silver to gold, I do not keep both. One replaces the other.