To me, Mora is very much about knowing which cards to buy and which ones to leave in the Tavern and hope your opponent buys them, because by itself a Mora card can end up being more helpful to the other person than to the person who plays it, and it's really most helpful when it can be comboed. I love playing against the NPCs with that deck, because they tend to be less careful about which cards to buy and when to avoid playing a bought card that can't be comboed during a given turn, although it can definitely make the match pretty brutal. In any case, I think it's a fun deck.

Sometimes it doesn't matter so much whether a specific patron was chosen, because it seems like none of the good cards in that patron's deck are coming up in the Tavern, as though they all ended up at the very bottom of the Tavern's draw pile. That can be a good thing, or it can be a bad thing. For instance, sometimes if the NPC chooses Rajhin (which I can't choose since I haven't collected it yet), I will be eager to buy up all of the Rajhin agent cards, but it's like they got left out of the shuffle-- and by the time they do finally show up in the Tavern, it's too late in the match for them to be of much use.

Seraphayel wrote: »

Where exactly does Mora even drastically revolves around its patron ability? It really does not. Orgnum though is the worst offender.

Patron is another name for the name of the deck. Mora warps the entire game around it.

Seraphayel wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Seraphayel wrote: »

Where exactly does Mora even drastically revolves around its patron ability? It really does not. Orgnum though is the worst offender.

Patron is another name for the name of the deck. Mora warps the entire game around it.

Ah, I thought it was about the patron ability. I mean there are decks that function solo well and there are decks that don’t. Mora is one of the former, so I don’t know what’s really surprising here. Same with Crow. That deck gives you everything without any backlashes or disadvantages. It‘s funny that no one mentioned it earlier, but as soon as Crow is picked it‘s basically mandatory to play it so your opponent doesn’t get like 3 or more purple cards, otherwise it‘s over.

I don't play Crow against Crow and have a high win rate against it. Also, there's already a thread about Crow. Other decks are problems too.

Crow needs hlallu, red eagle, or Psijic to work well. It doesn't do that much on its own.

Seraphayel wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I don't play Crow against Crow and have a high win rate against it. Also, there's already a thread about Crow. Other decks are problems too.

Crow needs hlallu, red eagle, or Psijic to work well. It doesn't do that much on its own.

I hope you’re joking. Crow is fully functioning by itself alone as it does everything. There are cards for coins, there are cards for power, there are agents and then on top of that those cards also let you draw additional cards. Crow is the only deck that does all of that at an absurd rate past a certain threshold of purple cards is reached.

It doesn’t need any support deck to properly function. Red Eagle just makes it more broken. Not saying there aren’t other decks that function properly by themselves alone (Mora), but Crow is definitely top tier in everything.

And yes, there‘s already a thread for Crow and other decks are problematic too, but not talking about Crow when talking about problematic decks is a bit disingenuous. Yes, you can easily sweep a win with Mora, but at the same time you can turn that win into a fast loss. Crow never puts you at a disadvantage.

Yes, Mora can be problematic, like a lot if you’re unlucky. Crow is problematic as soon a certain threshold of purple cards is reached. I just lost two matches in a row due to (for me) terrible Mora RNG, but it never feels as dull as losing to endless Crow chains.

(Enough of my Crow rant, sorry)

This was one of those Mora situations where I lost by the way. Frustrating? Yes, absolutely.

No. Crow doesn't function by itself well. It is heavily reliant on long combos, which are heavily RNG reliant. Without being able to combo much, it doesn't give a lot at all. This is why deck-manipulating patrons pair so well with it. They turn the RNG to the crow's favor. Without those other decks it is very easy to deny Crow long combos simply by removing crow cards from the tavern.


No. It's not disingenuous to discuss other problem patrons without discussing crow. That's why we have separate threads. It's perfectly acceptable to focus different threads on different problems.

That screenshot is a big part of the problem with Mora cards. It's contract cards are extremely overpowered. And contract cards are much less able to be played around that regular cards because you can't predict them the way you can regular ones.

I just want to respond to why I don't believe that Crow is game defining in the same way as Sorcerer-King or Mora.

First though, I will state how Crow can define games. There are plenty of games where players feel like THEY MUST purchase Crow cards so that they don't lose.

In that way, Crow can have a toxic effect on the game because it could be seen as diminishing player choice.

That said, there are still plenty of types of strategies that can be used while using Crow or can be used against an opponent who is using Crow.

The game can play out in different ways.

The way that I see Sorcerer-King and Mora is that the games are almost always power focused and in the most toxic way possible. It is much harder to play a different type of strategy that approaches the match in a way other than "make more power than them."

Even Pellin or Red Eagle can allow for different types of counter play when the opponent has gotten a starting Siege Weapon Volley and Midnight Raid. Those can be great starts, but it's not necessarily game defining.

And don't even get me started about how Red Eagle and Pellin have both had card nerfs while Sorcerer King has gotten numerous unnecessary buffs and Mora is prepared to get it's first one and for seemingly no good reason at all.

It's a game wide catastrophe that pick Mora, contract, contract, win was gameplay seen as not just worthy of TOT, but also as fixing a game problem, and on top of it all not addressed by a balance update, but rather made to be something that happens with even greater liklihood.

tsk tsk tsk tsk. I genuinely believe that design did not respect TOT enough with Mora.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

El_Borracho wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

This is why I consider these two decks to be the two lowest skill decks in the game, bar none. They aren't just powerful to play all on their own, but the entire game warps around them in a way that isn't as extreme with any other deck. Pelin is a close offender as well, but not as outrageous as these two.

Agree on Orgnum, and to a lesser extent on Mora. Still think Crow is the lowest skill deck. "See Crow, get Crow, eliminate coin cards."

"Get rid of coin cards" requires cards outside of the Crow deck and requires understanding of how to use different decks in a way that is supportive to your main deck. It's not an idea that requires a ton of skill, but requiring multiple decks ensures a lot of ability for counterplay and also means that there is a greater variety of strats to make crow work. The game plays out in different ways and there are more options available to your opponent as well.

Orgnum and Mora don't even require that and are fairly one note. Spam the patron or buy that same patron's cards. Power rush. That's it.

True, but the basic strategy for Crow is to get rid of non-Crow non-power cards. The Tavern is going to give you the Bucket and the chances your opponent has picked Red Eagle, Rajhin, or Mora are pretty decent if you are a Crow player. I know once I see someone go with Crow, I'm going to pick Rajhin to jam up the combos or Mora to force them to make a decision between pursuing Crow while not grabbing Mora cards.

Personofsecrets wrote: »

Mora is quite literally the thing that people pick when the decide that they don't want to play TOT.

Maybe TOT was a mistake since so many people want to "play" Mora.

Power rush "strategies" are the biggest sources of RNG victories in the game and Mora is by far the worst offender.

Why‘s that a problem? The faster a match is over, the better. Rather a short suffering than a match that drags on forever.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Seraphayel wrote: »

Why‘s that a problem? The faster a match is over, the better. Rather a short suffering than a match that drags on forever.

The longer a match, the more likely RNG is to even out and the more opportunities for counterplay, resulting in outcomes being less RNG driven. RNG will always play a factor because it's a card game, but it can play less of one with more opportunity for counterplay. The decks that aren't power rush therefore have more room for skill expression.

I‘m pretty sure that’s not how RNG works at all. If RNG wrecked you early on, you‘re never ever going to catch up. There‘s no counterplay if you got one card in several rounds while the opponent got 3 or 4 or even more. You simply can’t come back from that. RNG needs to even out early on or the match is so one sided that only some broken RNG wizardry can give you a win (like patron wins with two Tithes in the tavern).

The only two decks that can make a match one-sided very quickly are Crow and Mora. Maybe Hlaalu if you get lucky with Luxury Exports early on and can buy the entire tavern while your opponent has no real options until creating Writ after Writ.

Seraphayel wrote: »

Why‘s that a problem? The faster a match is over, the better. Rather a short suffering than a match that drags on forever.

There are rock, paper, scissor championships. The games can be over quickly.

I'm not so bad at connect 4. The game has an inevitible conclusion and is actually solved if you can remember everything.

Whether a game is fast or slow will have consequences on how it's played and who enjoys playing it.

Game pace matters.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Seraphayel wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Seraphayel wrote: »

Why‘s that a problem? The faster a match is over, the better. Rather a short suffering than a match that drags on forever.

The longer a match, the more likely RNG is to even out and the more opportunities for counterplay, resulting in outcomes being less RNG driven. RNG will always play a factor because it's a card game, but it can play less of one with more opportunity for counterplay. The decks that aren't power rush therefore have more room for skill expression.

I‘m pretty sure that’s not how RNG works at all.

It is absolutely how RNG works. The more times you a roll a dice, the more likely you are to get a particular side.

Take a normal 6-sided dice. Let's say you want to a roll a dice. Every roll has 1 in 6 odds that the number will be 5. But the odds that 5 won't appear at all decreases the more times you roll it.

So after 3 rolls it would be

(5/6)^3 the odds you didn't get a 5 on any of those rolls would be roughly 58%

After 25 rolls it would be

(5/6)^25 the odds you didn't get a 5 on any of those rolls would be roughly 1%

A dramatic difference in the terms of lucky rolls.

The longer the match goes on, the easier it is for both players to have assembled a good deck.

In fast games, you have less pulls, and thus less opportunity for recovery. This is one reason I prefer the slower decks. I am much more likely to be to turn a game with skill and recover from poor early start. Not because the system is favoring me or anything, but more pulls with the bad cards thinning out, means more opportunities for me to get good ones.

I‘m not entirely sure what you’ve explained is correct. There‘s always the same chance to roll a specific number with a die and that specific chance does not change in regards to how often you roll it. It’s always 1/6 as the odds are always the same (if it‘s a 6-sided die). They only change when you start to remove the numbers you’ve already rolled.

And I’m not even sure what this does mean in regards to ToT. If the RNG benefitted your opponent in the first three rounds, you‘re not equal just because RNG now evens out and benefits you in the next three rounds. The earlier the RNG is favoring the opponent, the harder it becomes to catch up (dare I say it’s in most cases not really possible) due to various reasons, in most cases due to coin management.

The length of a match only matters when both players are starting and continuing to play on pretty equal terms and that makes sense as a match only runs for longer if both sides are equally strong (or weak). A match that is already starting uneven (due to a player getting one of those very powerful starting cards like Luxury Exports or Armory) is not going to last long because some starter cards do just that.

Usually this only happens when there‘s a combination of very slow moving decks in play (Hlaalu, Rahjin, Almalexia, Psijic / Druid come to mind). Those matches often take forever because no side is generating any power. I had those matches where I was winning because of Psijic combos generating power because none of the other decks could - was painful, but I eventually won because I knew what to do). As soon as you bring fast decks into play (which I automatically do when someone is picking Rahjin or Crow), you normally don’t have longer matches (my matches are rarely longer than 12 minutes).

In over a thousand ranked games I’ve played, those comebacks you’re speaking of are basically an insignificant number when RNG continues to mess you up not just in the first round. I‘m not doubting any percentages or chances, I‘m doubting that it matters for ToT based on how ToT in general works. If both players had already set decks, I totally can see this happening. But in regards to on how many layers on layers of RNG it‘s build, I doubt it in practice. On paper? Definitely.

Mora is just plain degrading. A complete and total disappointment that such mechanics found their way into an otherwise thoughtful game.