[ToT] Power Generation Framework

sayswhoto

I wanted to start a discussion on perceiving power generation in Tales of Tribute. I know this might seem obvious, but expressing it in this format might create a helpful framework to visualize power rush strategies. So, here it is:



Typically we like to think about power generation through cards such as Armory is 5 power or Siege Weapon Volley is 4 power, but we can condense the card specific details into the ratio shown above. And the reason to do so is to emphasize it's not just cards like Armory that affect the rate of power, but also how fast your deck moves either through cycle or thinning. When viewed in this way, the average power generation rate of a high power card like Armory can be equivalent to weaker power cards with cycle such as Time Mastery.

Hypothetical Example
If your opponent picks up Armory first, the game is not necessarily over. While they have a better numerator (Power), you can catch up by improving the denominator part of the ratio (Turns per Shuffle) through cycle and deck thinning. A simple example is that if they need on average two turns to play Armory that is essentially 2.5 power/turns per shuffle. If you picked up Siege Weapon Volley and can cycle or thin your deck to just about play it every turn, then that would be 4 power/turns per shuffle, outpacing the power generation of Armory in this example.

Application to Patron Selection
This is part of the reason why you might see Psijic+Red Eagle as a counter pick to Orgnum+Pelin. It gives options to whoever is behind to improve the denominator (Turn per Shuffle) portion of the ratio while still allowing a strong way to lock out a game if someone gets both power and cycle/deck thinning. Orgnum+Pelin is the numerator portion of the equation while Psijic+Red Eagle represents the denominator.

However, I want to comment that I feel (not necessarily correct) Alessia+Mora is probably one of the more consistent second turn plyer picks regardless what the first turn player picks. The possibility of the first turn player missing out on 4 gold, especially if they selected a patron with a non-gold card, and likelihood of the second turn player getting 4 gold to start Alessia spam is usually too advantageous to not pick. There are details to this that are off topic, like prioritizing Mora cards, so Alessia spam isn't a default.

Conclusion
The equation shown is a helpful way to abstract power generation from the card detail level to a simple ratio. Although it's an overly simplistic way to approach power rush, it can be used as a guide to making the right decisions in-game.

Personofsecrets

One interesting phenomenon is how the deck thinning options of Celarus, Red Eagle, and Almalexia function compared to eachother.

Red Eagle is the slowest, but eventually leads to high consistency hands.

Just a couple of Celarus cards can take the guess work out of the draw, but will be less consistent when full cycles can't be completed or when a mostly clean shuffle happens.

Almalexia functions similarily to Celarus. It has an upside of sometimes filtering into high gold or otherwise strong hands. It has some downside too where Donating over and over can setup a bad shuffle and potentially vanilla next turn.

And, not to side track too much, but since you mentioned them, I'm really disappointed in Alessia and Mora. I'm disappointed because those classes have made TOT follow what is sort of typical of digital card games I've played. The games start really solid with great decision making outlooks. Overtime, more cheesy game pieces are added which may have too much impact on their own or be too much based in a random aspect. Tsk tsk.

sayswhoto

Yeah, different ways of cycle and deck thinning will lead to considerations outside of just one formula. Even refresh abilities like Almalexia's Mother's Mercy/Almsivi's Charity and Hunding's deck will add a component not accounted for in the ratio. And ever since they added power to Celarus, it's defininitely has chances to win games on its own.

Alessia+Mora probably won't be the most liked patron combo on the ladder, but at least it's still far away from what a game like Hearthstone has become. Compared to the original four patrons, I do feel it has tilted the game more towards gimmicks or cheese, especially when people are just banking on the first turn player only getting 3 gold.

Personofsecrets

Thanks for mentioning, I forgot about the refresh cards.

There is one good player who picks Alessia habitually. I don't really know what they see in it, but it must be this aspect of gimping someone on their first turn. I haven't liked the power generating starter cards for a while now since there have been Rajhiin players who do the same type of thing, but the Alessia way of going about things has more extreme ups and downs.

I've been playing Elder Scrolls Legends in anticipation of it's soon-to-be shutdown. That game had alot of cheesy stuff added and especially so as a parting gift from designers right before the game was put in maintenance mode some years ago.

I'll say this, at this point I wouldn't personally change TESL. Maybe I'd promote some tournaments with ban lists, but I wouldn't change the game. It has been cheesy for far too long and TESL became just that now. Eventually new forms of play will replace the old ones as well as the identity of a game, that's just what happens.

That said, I've now gotten to reexperience that there are all kinds of non-games that can happen for various reasons. I wish that designers would stop being attracted to these types of design spaces, but they seem pretty consistent in treading into them. And Hearthstone's success, with it's zaniness and all, certainly hasn't helped the situation...

I invision a card game that is exclusive for those who aren't attracted to the cheap thrills of how fast a Flame Imp can smash someone or how wacky a Piloted Shredder can be. With how fast design teams break promises about "no RNG" and introduce power creep, I'm lead to believe that there aren't many people such as myself who would appreciate a good old fair game.