NeKryXe wrote: »

Personofsecrets wrote: »

Patron Change for streamlining play.
Rajhin, the Purring Liar: Patron Use - From: 3 cost - To: 4 cost.

This is not balancing. This feels more that you don't like it or know how to play against it and want to kill it. Just ask to remove the deck from the game, it's probably better for you. Rajhin deck has been already nerfed. Why more?

Remember that Rajhin patron is the only proper tool we have to break a little the Crows combos. It should even be cheaper, since both player can use it unlike the Crow combos that only the player with most Crow cards can use. Increasing the already expensive Rajhin patron is basically killing the game for players who don't want to play Crows or Orgnum. We already have most players picking the Crows, you nerf more the Rajhin and we all be forced to play Crows against Crows and against Orgnum.

Learn the Rajhin, try it against a good Crow player (without falling on using it too) and you'll understand. The Rajhin patron should be cheaper.

This isn't a balance change, you're right. The header for the section regarding the Rajhin button was meant to indicate that the change is to just streamline play.

As for your other sentiments, you are forced to play crow any time someone picks crow. It's very unwise to try and not use a certain strategy just because you don't like it. Sometimes that means you get a strong crow deck, strong Rajhin deck, a strong mix of both, or something else based on the other two patrons.

As for learning Rajhin, I'm happy to learn more about the game. Even as someone who finishes within the top several players of each TOT ranked season I do find more to learn. Regardless of what I can learn and what my feelings about the button may be, there are enough players that dislike the button and having a few less Rajhin patron activations could help streamline those players experience. I personally don't care about the button and my personal play habits would probably be restricted by the change that I suggest since I press the button alot.

NeKryXe wrote: »

Personofsecrets wrote: »

NeKryXe wrote: »

Personofsecrets wrote: »

Patron Change for streamlining play.
Rajhin, the Purring Liar: Patron Use - From: 3 cost - To: 4 cost.

This is not balancing. This feels more that you don't like it or know how to play against it and want to kill it. Just ask to remove the deck from the game, it's probably better for you. Rajhin deck has been already nerfed. Why more?

Remember that Rajhin patron is the only proper tool we have to break a little the Crows combos. It should even be cheaper, since both player can use it unlike the Crow combos that only the player with most Crow cards can use. Increasing the already expensive Rajhin patron is basically killing the game for players who don't want to play Crows or Orgnum. We already have most players picking the Crows, you nerf more the Rajhin and we all be forced to play Crows against Crows and against Orgnum.

Learn the Rajhin, try it against a good Crow player (without falling on using it too) and you'll understand. The Rajhin patron should be cheaper.

This isn't a balance change, you're right. The header for the section regarding the Rajhin button was meant to indicate that the change is to just streamline play.

As for your other sentiments, you are forced to play crow any time someone picks crow. It's very unwise to try and not use a certain strategy just because you don't like it. Sometimes that means you get a strong crow deck, strong Rajhin deck, a strong mix of both, or something else based on the other two patrons.

As for learning Rajhin, I'm happy to learn more about the game. Even as someone who finishes within the top several players of each TOT ranked season I do find more to learn. Regardless of what I can learn and what my feelings about the button may be, there are enough players that dislike the button and having a few less Rajhin patron activations could help streamline those players experience. I personally don't care about the button and my personal play habits would probably be restricted by the change that I suggest since I press the button alot.

I find it all weird because we are not supposed to use any patron for the enjoyment of opponent. It's a combat. I absolutely hate the Orgnum patron too, and it's now even cheaper. Why the hell should Rajhin patron get more expensive? Lots of players hate Orgnum too. We all have likes and dislikes. Constantly suggesting to nerf the decks we don't like is not a solution.

Unlike what you say, I already played many matches where I couldn't get any Crow card, and had to rely on Rajhin to solve the problem against an opponent filled with Crowns. In those cases the 3 cost is already super expensive. Like I said, if something, they should reduce the price, like they did with Orgnum that was 3 and now it's 2. Players nagging about Rajhin will be nagging any way, be it cheaper or more expensive. Those are players that don't like the deck or even the game.

The comments about Orgnum being cheaper aren't within the correct context. Although that Patron ability was cheapened, it was cheapened only for players who have an opponent that the Patron is favoring. So the cheapened Patron actually helps players get back into the game a little bit in the cases where the opponent has started using the Orgnum button. It wasn't cheapened across the board as to always encourage it's use. That Patron receives plenty of negativity and the designers acted accordingly.

"I find it all weird because we are not supposed to use any patron for the enjoyment of opponent." Okay, but such thought also undermines how you personally feel regarding how Rajhin should interact with the Duke. In another thread we also talk about some issues surrounding the Rajhin deck and patron. You can read it below and there are some points that one could use to justify increasing the cost of the Rajhin button beyond how people feel. For example, why should people with a small advantage be able to turn such advantage into a game winning advantage just by using the same Patron activation turn after turn? That isn't an elevated form of gameplay as it encourages small lucky starts leading to drawn out overwhelming wins.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/624506/a-message-to-those-who-get-upset-about-the-rajhin-button#latest

I don't personally care about the button, so talking about "we" in terms of changes that are made doesn't reflect my personal preferences. Also, you can review my notes to see that not only was a Duke of Crow card change suggested for streamlining play, but the Duke also has the most cards on the balance watch list.

WitchyKiki wrote: »

Person, I think you're a great player and you're always on top of the leaderboards. I just don't understand why you have so many game change suggestions & issues with the game, when you've already proven that the game can be dominated. Maybe take a little break from TOT and enjoy other aspects of Tamriel. I took some time off it and now enjoy it for what it is. A mini-game.

One could see it the other way too, right? Someone does well at something and therefore has valid reasons for the suggestions that they make. I'm not saying that is necessarily the case. Afterall, the designers have their own vision of how cards and game mechanics should work and we don't know what all of those points of theirs may be. But I'm sure they are open to suggestion and I would enjoy if some of my suggestions were acted on.

As for other parts of the game, there are communities of players that like to do what I like to do, but I can still go ask on any given day and find zero people to dungeoneer with. I was grinding dungeons since maybe v10 or v12. It's been a long time and TOT is the new thing to enjoy that I can que up into with a relatively small hassle. Besides, I've been collecting and playing various card games since the year 2000. It's sort of my thing and I've played through much worse balance issues than Pounce & Profit/Grand Larceny. Looking at you Parthurnax and Tullius Conscription, literally what were you people thinking.

Good take, I love board games and card games. I used to do a lot of ESO BGs/PVP before TOT released. I spent a good portion of my time theory crafting and getting gear, ganking etc. I went through so many "balance changes" that wrecked a lot of classes and made PVP completely unfun (The-Ring-that-Must-Not-Be-Named being a culprit) and tbh, nothing will ever truly be perfectly balanced. I made my peace with it, some stuff just sucks.

I'd rather have new content added to the game than going through the constant waves of changes that break the fun out of other things. I find TOT fun, I don't find some aspects fun and theres a lot on your post I can agree with (crow just needs to be deleted all-together tbh). What I find most unfun is more changes for the sake of a "balance" that really doesn't exist.

WitchyKiki wrote: »

Good take, I love board games and card games. I used to do a lot of ESO BGs/PVP before TOT released. I spent a good portion of my time theory crafting and getting gear, ganking etc. I went through so many "balance changes" that wrecked a lot of classes and made PVP completely unfun (The-Ring-that-Must-Not-Be-Named being a culprit) and tbh, nothing will ever truly be perfectly balanced. I made my peace with it, some stuff just sucks.

I'd rather have new content added to the game than going through the constant waves of changes that break the fun out of other things. I find TOT fun, I don't find some aspects fun and theres a lot on your post I can agree with (crow just needs to be deleted all-together tbh). What I find most unfun is more changes for the sake of a "balance" that really doesn't exist.

Even as CP 2160, I prefered the no CP gametypes. I did used to que up for BG's and enjoyed the objective game types the most. At some point, if I remember correctly, the gametypes changed to be all deathmatch? I don't remember exactly, but somehting along those lines and the super long que timer just made me lose interest. I was also enjoying no CP IC, but a few things sort of happened that make it unattractive in more recent times. They got rid of proc sets, which is fine, but I since haven't bothered to find out what I can and can't use there. Other than that, the zone was promoted more so it started to more often fill up with good size groups which isn't super fun as just one person.

tonyblack wrote: »

My major problem with ToT is that even games against npcs could take anywhere from 5-9 minutes unless you go against easiest ones to get patrons win. Against players it usually doubles in duration resulting in 15 minutes matches, nerfing cards would only make it longer and thus more boring. I don’t mind loosing against better players if it’s quick, prolonged drag because of weak cards would only make it even less fun. There are way too many weak cards already and your suggestions would make the choice of good ones even more narrow. Imho, game needs stronger cards and more power oriented decks so the matches last shorter, psijic and rajhin decks are the worst for the fact how they artificially prolong already slow games.

I'm coming from the perspective that people should win based primarily on the merits of their skills rather than the strength of their cards. That philosophy is assisted by having cards more in balance with each other and, yes, having a lower power ceiling in general.

It's understandable that some people prefer fast games, but that's really something that your problem starts with a low end threshold of 5 minutes. I don't know if any game today is being designed to be shorter than that and I think that a sweet spot time that designers move toward is 10 minutes. So why 5 minutes? It's not like this game is one intended for play on the phone.

I'm also not sure if all of your analysis is correct. For example, the Psijic cards do take too long to resolve and the animations of them could be cut down. That said, the effects of those cards help players get to their good cards faster, help players setup combos, and the result of playing stronger cards or combos more often could be a faster win. I'm not saying that I'm always right in this idea, but I think it is a possibility.

Also, with the Rajhin deck, if I do get a power card such as Pounce and Profit or Grand Larceny early on, then you can bet that I will be using the Rajhin patron button as frequently as possible. Some of these games have become exceedingly long because the power card let me focus on the button and making sure that the opponent could never win as a safer strategy to churning the tavern early to try and win myself. There is little reason to risk that the opponent can get a good card from the tavern until their deck is thoroughly filled with bewilderment cards. I understand that this may just be how I play, but I do want to point out the cases where powerful cards aren't necessarily doing the implied thing of making the overall game faster.

rbfrgsp wrote: »

That's a bid ol' DISAGREE

Something like Luxury Exports or Grand Larceny is a powerful advantage in the first 5-10 turns. But in a tight game where both players are on 30+ points and on a dash to accumulate power and reach the finish line, those cards become total dead weight. If you haven't a way of thinning them from your deck at that point, then those same cards can cost you the game.

The second thing doesn't lead from the first. There can still be tight games when one of these cards is purchased, especially if both players are able to get such cards in the first couple of turns. When one player is able to get one of the power economy cards while the other player is stuck using the treasury, it isn't likely that the game will be close. It's easy to think about prestige and think that the prestige value going up is what wins the game. Yes, that is the technical win condition, but games are virtually won by being able to make more meaningful plays throughout a game and that factor is largely benefited by economy boosters.

The notion that these economy cards become dead weight in the late game is also not quite right. Having an extra Hlallu card can be necessary for making game deciding combos, like with Currency Exchange, happen. It's also the case that a skilled player can just remove the card from their deck with Delmene's Patron ability should the card really be disadvantageous for some reason. In the case of the Rajhin power card, the deck comes with Agent killers for a reason. Agents can be extremely powerful for their reusability, so it can be advantageous to keep an out for them in the deck. And in this case, it's also an out that generates more gold than any other 5 or lower cost card.

rbfrgsp wrote: »

That's a lot of "what ifs" that have to be in play to ensure that an early advantage remains a game-long advantage. I think that this alone should tell you that those cards are not the huge advantage that you say they are.

No, the cards absolutely are the huge advantage that I say they are. There is a large amount of utility found by getting extra boosts to the economy at an early state of the game. Being able to churn a contract and then reveal a buyable card in the tavern is one huge advantage. Even just being able to buy a tavern card and use the treasury the same turn while the opponent can only perform one of those game actions with their relatively smaller economy helps accelerate the bigger economies deck past the opponents.

Unfortunately, we don't have game data to look at to see just how many games are won by someone who get's Luxury/Pounce/Grand first turn. So I have to just go by my intuition formed with 20 years of card gaming and I speculate being within the top 5% of hours played TOT.

So do you think that there aren't cards which are much better than other cards with respect to their power/cost ratio?

Because I do agree with you that the game is pretty well balanced. Despite being pretty well balanced though, there has been official acknowledgement of at least some initial balance issue because cards have been changed. There have been multiple balance changes in TOT and that shows that the designers do have standards which they missed the mark with and continue to update cards as their opinions change since the games launch.

rbfrgsp wrote: »

The high cash cards have a powerful utility early game, but they go unbought when they enter the tavern late game. That tells you that their utility is contextual and not absolute. And that they are therefore balanced - even if they are especially effective within their own niche.

I'm going to use an anology. When someone buys a car, it's usually much more valuable when they get it than when it's time to get rid of it. Part of that reason is because people do all kinds of traveling around, they get value back out of the car like when getting to work on time, and then it's still something that they can trade in later. I used to walk to work. Trust me, it's no fun to have to do that while everyone else is zooming by. Watching an opponent accelerate to the end game after their first turn economy boosting pickup can't be countered is of similar fun.

The economy boosters that I'd like to have changed make picking up something like currency exchange within their next 3 turns a certainy provided that single power generators where convereted. Anyone who isn't getting that boost, but instead using the treasury, will only be seeing a 22% chance within the next 3 turns to perform the same purchase. That is not only a huge difference in chances, but also often a game defining difference, and finally not really fair considering that this type of setup can happen on the first turn of the game without any interaction possible from the opponent.

You still are incorrect to say that the economy cards don't have decent value at the end of the game. As I pointed out, combos and the effects of themselves are still important as a game moves on. Churning the tavern for 2 with Prophecy can be huge. Flipping a power requiring patron because of the flexibility of Warrior Wave can be huge. These effects in the end game shouldn't be understated.

You are also missing the mark to think that just because something may lose value into the late game that it is balanced overall. Perhaps your idea shows a form of balance because there are many forms of balance, but if so, it's a form of balance that ultimately isn't as important as ensuring that the early game, often a game defining part of the game, is as balanced as possible from an economy perspective.

WitchyKiki wrote: »

All of this and I'm over here thinking that we do need a patron that steals random cards from your opponents deck and swaps it out for one of yours. ._.

We need a Sheogorath deck like I suggested in the thread below. That is basically what I chose for the Favored Patron effect.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/622099/what-decks-would-you-like-to-see-in-the-future#latest

I can usually predict the winner of a match within the first few moves, because some of the early cards do so much for the headstart that the late game cards don't even make a big difference in many cases. I have turned games around and had them turned around on me before, but the majority of the time, you know who won pretty early.

Many of the changes suggested in the OP would go a long way to fixing that IMO.

WitchyKiki wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

WitchyKiki wrote: »

All of this and I'm over here thinking that we do need a patron that steals random cards from your opponents deck and swaps it out for one of yours. ._.

We need a Sheogorath deck like I suggested in the thread below. That is basically what I chose for the Favored Patron effect.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/622099/what-decks-would-you-like-to-see-in-the-future#latest

Yes! I was thinking of you and this post but I wasnt sure if you were still reading this forum!

I've not been playing much at all but still hope to find good suggestions and changes that will make me want to come back!

I think I have a pertinent quote about early game cards from a thread I made earlier about the issue.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Being able to predict the winner isn't the same as it being a foregone conclusion. I'm not saying it's impossible to win, I am saying that the odds are disproportionately in favor of whoever got the better cards in the early game, making it fairly simple to predict the results. I have certainly turned around games plenty of times, but it's more likely than not that the game was already decided early on. That most of the changes have centered around early game cards should demonstrate pretty easily that this is correct.

Early Game Cards (5 coins or less) changed

1) Scratch
2) Ceporah's Insight
3) Psijic Insight
4) Prescience
5) Time Mastery
6) Prowling Shadow
7) Jeering Shadow
8) Midnight Raid
9) Armory (now a mid game card)
10) Siege Volley
11) Grand Larceny
12) Conquest
13) Warrior Wave
14) Maormer Boarding Party
15) Serpent Guard Rider
16) Summerset Sacking

Mid-Late Game Cards changed (6 or more coins)

1) Hireling
2) Oathmen
3) Jarring Lullaby
4) Shadow Slumber
5) Rally
6) Currency Exchange
7) March on Hattu
8) Hira's End
9) Snakeskin Freebooter (is now an early game card on PTS)

Note that I defined "Early Game" as 5 coins or less, but it could easily be argued that 6 coin cards are also early game because they can be bought on player 2's very first turn.

If it's defined as 6 coin cards, then that list skews even further toward early game receiving the most balance changes.

Hireling, Oathmen, Rally, March on Hattu, and Hira's End can all be purchased turn 1 of the second player.

That so much of the balance changes have centered on early game would indicate the devs are aware of the issue and are making minor adjustments to fix it.