Seraphayel wrote: »This was one (!) round of my opponent. Does this look bloody normal to anyone? And these rounds happen way too much when someone reaches a critical treshold of Crow cards. It's ridiculous. My opponent played 14 (FOURTEEN!) cards from his hand instead of the regular five. And this one didn't even play with Reachmen as they usually do. Eight came from Crow, one from Loremaster. Are you kidding me?
Seraphayel wrote: »This was one (!) round of my opponent. Does this look bloody normal to anyone? And these rounds happen way too much when someone reaches a critical treshold of Crow cards. It's ridiculous. My opponent played 14 (FOURTEEN!) cards from his hand instead of the regular five. And this one didn't even play with Reachmen as they usually do. Eight came from Crow, one from Loremaster. Are you kidding me?
This isn't the hand of a "mediocore" or "no skill" player. Unfortunately you made a sismic error when you let them aquire the Psjic cards plus stack crow. They've carefully used the cycle effects to be able to stack crow draws and effectively punished you. A mediocre or unskilled player would have just dropped them first 5 cards and relied on luck to get the next lot of crow cards. I'm guessing this player used the blue 5 first, purple 1, 6, drew an used 4 to get 7, used purple 6 to cycle cards and draw purple 4 which gave them more croaw cards. You can see at the end despite using the contract blue cards they still had to settle on writs. So they've probably cycled through their whole hand at that stage.
If someone is stacking crow cards you must remove any cycle cards from the tavern as a priority.
spartaxoxo wrote: »They used the Celarus deck to control their card draw. They were able to do that because the ordered the cards in an advantageous way.
Seraphayel wrote: »Thank you for explaining me how the game works, but that doesn’t change any of the major underlying problems with Crow that still exist. It should be prohibited for decks like Crow (or Almalexia) to do this ad infinitum.
spartaxoxo wrote: »Seraphayel wrote: »Thank you for explaining me how the game works, but that doesn’t change any of the major underlying problems with Crow that still exist. It should be prohibited for decks like Crow (or Almalexia) to do this ad infinitum.
I mean if you have multiple decks combining, then it's not really a good example of the strength of just one of the decks.
I agree that crow combos can get pretty extreme but it's not more extreme than what can happen with Mora when it's pushed to its limit.
Seraphayel wrote: »You have to play Mora carefully and always observe your opponents deck to not risk basically finishing off yourself. With Crow you really have not to do that.
spartaxoxo wrote: »I have seen plenty of people lose games they could have won due to mistakes with that patron.
Seraphayel wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »I have seen plenty of people lose games they could have won due to mistakes with that patron.
This is why I stated that players that usually resort to Crow are in most cases mediocre players. I'm not saying that no top-ranking player with a lot of skill is playing Crow also, but from hundreds and hundreds of games (my count for the last two months is almost 700 ranked games) in my experience players that always, exclusively pick Crow are on the lesser skilled side of the ToT playerbase.
I don't care who ever says and what, the game is mostly based on rng and that's just the way it is.
spartaxoxo wrote: »I don't care who ever says and what, the game is mostly based on rng and that's just the way it is.
We wouldn't have the same people consistently on top of the leaderboard and people reporting 90% winrates if that was the case. It's a card game, ofc there's RNG, but it's not mostly RNG.
Seraphayel wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »I don't care who ever says and what, the game is mostly based on rng and that's just the way it is.
We wouldn't have the same people consistently on top of the leaderboard and people reporting 90% winrates if that was the case. It's a card game, ofc there's RNG, but it's not mostly RNG.
I very much doubt 90% win rates if players play hundreds of games per month. If they play just enough to get to the top and then do one or two games to stay there that win rate is basically meaningless.
spartaxoxo wrote: »Seraphayel wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »I don't care who ever says and what, the game is mostly based on rng and that's just the way it is.
We wouldn't have the same people consistently on top of the leaderboard and people reporting 90% winrates if that was the case. It's a card game, ofc there's RNG, but it's not mostly RNG.
I very much doubt 90% win rates if players play hundreds of games per month. If they play just enough to get to the top and then do one or two games to stay there that win rate is basically meaningless.
There's a thread right now for someone who did 2000 casual games, for example. And that same person also previously got it with hundreds of competitive games, I'm like 70% positive.
Personofsecrets wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »Seraphayel wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »I don't care who ever says and what, the game is mostly based on rng and that's just the way it is.
We wouldn't have the same people consistently on top of the leaderboard and people reporting 90% winrates if that was the case. It's a card game, ofc there's RNG, but it's not mostly RNG.
I very much doubt 90% win rates if players play hundreds of games per month. If they play just enough to get to the top and then do one or two games to stay there that win rate is basically meaningless.
There's a thread right now for someone who did 2000 casual games, for example. And that same person also previously got it with hundreds of competitive games, I'm like 70% positive.
My competitive win rate is only 80%
spartaxoxo wrote: »Seraphayel wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »I don't care who ever says and what, the game is mostly based on rng and that's just the way it is.
We wouldn't have the same people consistently on top of the leaderboard and people reporting 90% winrates if that was the case. It's a card game, ofc there's RNG, but it's not mostly RNG.
I very much doubt 90% win rates if players play hundreds of games per month. If they play just enough to get to the top and then do one or two games to stay there that win rate is basically meaningless.
There's a thread right now for someone who did 2000 casual games, for example. And that same person also previously got it with hundreds of competitive games, I'm like 70% positive.
Personofsecrets wrote: »It truly is amazing how much players can become carried by Crow combos.
Seraphayel wrote: »Personofsecrets wrote: »It truly is amazing how much players can become carried by Crow combos.
I‘ve said it multiple times, even the least bright bulb can win with Crow. It has nothing to do with skill to pick and win with Crow, especially when paired with Reachmen. It‘s the patron combo that allows even toddlers to play and win ToT matches. And the worst part about it: you can’t do anything besides just watching. Or playing the stupid Crow game yourself.
Crow is 100% advantages, 0% disadvantages. You basically lose nothing by stacking up on Crow cards and playing them whereas Mora, which is often brought up, has a ton of disadvantages added, especially in Crow scenarios. It‘s funny when I play against the usual Crow suspects and see how they struggle when they don’t get Crow cards because I buy them or the tavern just doesn’t offer any. They simply don’t know what to do.