Please tweak Rajhin. I just got out of an 80 minute match vs it (not uncommon).

TumlinTheJolly · January 22

As title says, I think some tweaks to Rajhin could be healthy for the game. I get that stall mechanics have a place, but a deck that has THREE stall mechanics (patron, knockout agents, and reduce prestige) is overkill and will drive new Tribute players away.

The game that I was just in lasted 80 minutes because of this. There was actually a point where they hit 40 (while I was on about 20), but I used Rajhin against them to pull them back under 40. I went on to win the game around 65-30 after draining them until I could get a good enough combo to safely Crow. Funnily enough this game put me in Rubedite.

Some possible tweaks could be:
-Change Stubborn Shadow from -2 prestige to -1 prestige AND +1 power
-Change Twilight Revelry from -3 prestige to -1 prestige AND +2 power
-Change one of the cards that gives -1 prestige to +1 power
-Make the patron cost 1 more gold

These would let the deck keep its identity but slightly reduce the potential for extremely lengthy stalls. The challenge, of course, is tweaking the deck without nerfing it.

Personofsecrets · January 22

Unfortunately, it can be concluded that this type of gameplay is intended since the patron hasn't been addressed at all and the offending cards that assist in making these games happen have been treated with kid's gloves.

spartaxoxo · January 24

I actually consider this the most toxic deck in the game because of this. This one doesn't have to be played to win but played to not lose, resulting in obnoxiously long and disheartening matches. I also think gives the user too much power over their opponents deck allowing them to take an early lead and then just make the opponent miserable without having to close out the game and just win.

I don't think power rushing is great either but at least it let's everyone move on quickly.

vuwuv · February 5

It's the second deck besides Alessia that need patron costs change - 1/3/5 would be nice.

Major_Mangle · February 5

Most patrons should be reworked to become more expensive the more consecutive uses it gets from the same user (exponentially). Would also be interesting if they added a card that prevents the use of patrons for X turns (part of the neutral cards not connected to any decks).

Seraphayel · February 5

Major_Mangle wrote: »

Most patrons should be reworked to become more expensive the more consecutive uses it gets from the same user (exponentially). Would also be interesting if they added a card that prevents the use of patrons for X turns (part of the neutral cards not connected to any decks).

Patrons just shouldn't be usable when you've favored them like Crow. Would fix a lot of issues. Would also dumb down patrons, but spamming them is obnoxious, especially for decks like Sorcerer King.

vuwuv · February 5

Seraphayel wrote: »

Major_Mangle wrote: »

Most patrons should be reworked to become more expensive the more consecutive uses it gets from the same user (exponentially). Would also be interesting if they added a card that prevents the use of patrons for X turns (part of the neutral cards not connected to any decks).

Patrons just shouldn't be usable when you've favored them like Crow. Would fix a lot of issues. Would also dumb down patrons, but spamming them is obnoxious, especially for decks like Sorcerer King.

But Orgnum is perfectly well with 1 coin cost at unfavored position, isn't it?

Seraphayel · February 5

vuwuv wrote: »

Seraphayel wrote: »

Major_Mangle wrote: »

Most patrons should be reworked to become more expensive the more consecutive uses it gets from the same user (exponentially). Would also be interesting if they added a card that prevents the use of patrons for X turns (part of the neutral cards not connected to any decks).

Patrons just shouldn't be usable when you've favored them like Crow. Would fix a lot of issues. Would also dumb down patrons, but spamming them is obnoxious, especially for decks like Sorcerer King.

But Orgnum is perfectly well with 1 coin cost at unfavored position, isn't it?

Yes, why not?

vuwuv · February 5

Seraphayel wrote: »

vuwuv wrote: »

Seraphayel wrote: »

Major_Mangle wrote: »

Most patrons should be reworked to become more expensive the more consecutive uses it gets from the same user (exponentially). Would also be interesting if they added a card that prevents the use of patrons for X turns (part of the neutral cards not connected to any decks).

Patrons just shouldn't be usable when you've favored them like Crow. Would fix a lot of issues. Would also dumb down patrons, but spamming them is obnoxious, especially for decks like Sorcerer King.

But Orgnum is perfectly well with 1 coin cost at unfavored position, isn't it?

Yes, why not?

Never mind, it just seemed to me you're still disappointed with Orgnum.

Seraphayel · February 5

vuwuv wrote: »

Seraphayel wrote: »

vuwuv wrote: »

Seraphayel wrote: »

Major_Mangle wrote: »

Most patrons should be reworked to become more expensive the more consecutive uses it gets from the same user (exponentially). Would also be interesting if they added a card that prevents the use of patrons for X turns (part of the neutral cards not connected to any decks).

Patrons just shouldn't be usable when you've favored them like Crow. Would fix a lot of issues. Would also dumb down patrons, but spamming them is obnoxious, especially for decks like Sorcerer King.

But Orgnum is perfectly well with 1 coin cost at unfavored position, isn't it?

Yes, why not?

Never mind, it just seemed to me you're still disappointed with Orgnum.

Orgnum is just the biggest offender when it comes to patron spam, that’s why I said it. I don’t know what Orgnum just costing 1 when you’re unfavored has to do with that. I like the ramping up costs of Orgnum, it’s something they could implement for more patrons. Rahjin 2/3/4, Alessia 3/4/5 etc.

vuwuv · February 5

Seraphayel wrote: »

vuwuv wrote: »

Seraphayel wrote: »

vuwuv wrote: »

Seraphayel wrote: »

Major_Mangle wrote: »

Most patrons should be reworked to become more expensive the more consecutive uses it gets from the same user (exponentially). Would also be interesting if they added a card that prevents the use of patrons for X turns (part of the neutral cards not connected to any decks).

Patrons just shouldn't be usable when you've favored them like Crow. Would fix a lot of issues. Would also dumb down patrons, but spamming them is obnoxious, especially for decks like Sorcerer King.

But Orgnum is perfectly well with 1 coin cost at unfavored position, isn't it?

Yes, why not?

Never mind, it just seemed to me you're still disappointed with Orgnum.

Orgnum is just the biggest offender when it comes to patron spam, that’s why I said it. I don’t know what Orgnum just costing 1 when you’re unfavored has to do with that. I like the ramping up costs of Orgnum, it’s something they could implement for more patrons. Rahjin 2/3/4, Alessia 3/4/5 etc.

That means you can afford to spend more gold at the tavern and still be able to use the patron. All of these 3 patrons should cost 1 gold if unfavored, it's an absolute must. Two other prices are discussable, might even stay the same, no huge deal. But 5 gold cost while favored for both of them would be so sweet.

ZOS_JessicaFolsom · February 5

Hey @TumlinTheJolly as a heads-up, we just wanted to let you know we passed your feedback along to the team who works on Tribute and they are going to look at this. While a lot of factors can play into how long a match goes, they did agree that 80 minutes is longer than intended for any one match.

Solariken · February 5

There are a couple trolls out there who always pick Rajhin and Almalexia and often makes for a really terrible experience. Both decks are extremely unfun.

Personofsecrets · February 5

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

Hey @TumlinTheJolly as a heads-up, we just wanted to let you know we passed your feedback along to the team who works on Tribute and they are going to look at this. While a lot of factors can play into how long a match goes, they did agree that 80 minutes is longer than intended for any one match.

@ZOS_JessicaFolsom , thank you very much for updating us regarding this issue. I have a number of pain points that I'll post over in that thread regarding TOT and I hope that they can all be addressed.

Because this there is an issue that is a big one, I'll mention it here as well, can the team please take decisive action against turn-timer abusers?

A large number of people are having awful tribute experiences, and have been forever, because of players who abuse the turn timer length.

Between this issue, a few balance tweaks, better rewards, and some other small stuff, I think that people could be having a 100% better time in Tribute. Some of these issues are quite obvious too, so it's been a giant disappointment for the team to have not addressed them already.

For example, it's not like people just started having half hour plus matches in tribute because of Rajhin. In the first couple months or so of release, there were statistics posted about the game which showed that a match involved the use of something like 40 bewilderment cards. These are the cards that slow down games and are an inherent element to how the Rajhin patron works. So like I said, the team knows about this issue. This patron has had an inherent toxic element that directly turns people away from tribute. It's baffling how the issue isn't addressed while, in the meantime, there have been all kinds of balance changes that aren't even needed in some cases.

Anyhow, thank you again and I'll tag you over in the pain point thread, this evening. once I finish that post. I really want tribute to be the best game that it can be and am also open to consulting. I've played over 6000 matches of tribute, have a long time background in card games, participated in Bethesda's premier tournament at the highest level for The Elder Scrolls Legends card game, and am even in a TOT guild!

ZOS_JessicaFolsom · February 5

@Personofsecrets thank you! Tagged the team to look at your post above, too.

JobooAGS · February 5

Solariken wrote: »

There are a couple trolls out there who always pick Rajhin and Almalexia and often makes for a really terrible experience. Both decks are extremely unfun.

I just leave any game that has both decks. If you choose those decks, enjoy your cheap victory.

The 5-10 min penalty is worth the wait many times over

Seraphayel · February 5

JobooAGS wrote: »

Solariken wrote: »

There are a couple trolls out there who always pick Rajhin and Almalexia and often makes for a really terrible experience. Both decks are extremely unfun.

I just leave any game that has both decks. If you choose those decks, enjoy your cheap victory.

The 5-10 min penalty is worth the wait many times over

Why leave when you can simply choose decks that actively counter their playstyle and try a win? It doesn’t make sense to outright concede when you still have the power to make it a short match, even if you already picked a deck. You guys are giving yourselves a hard time when there’s an (easy) fix for that.

Personofsecrets · February 5

Seraphayel wrote: »

JobooAGS wrote: »

Solariken wrote: »

There are a couple trolls out there who always pick Rajhin and Almalexia and often makes for a really terrible experience. Both decks are extremely unfun.

I just leave any game that has both decks. If you choose those decks, enjoy your cheap victory.

The 5-10 min penalty is worth the wait many times over

Why leave when you can simply choose decks that actively counter their play style and try a win? It doesn’t make sense to outright concede when you still have the power to make it a short match, even if you already picked a deck. You guys are giving yourselves a hard time when there’s an (easy) fix for that.

You seem to think that counters are sufficient ways of dealing with toxic game play.

Needless to say, counters don't always work. Sometimes they are very effective, but not always. And when I say "not always," that can mean that counters aren't sufficient at mitigating toxic game play patterns a majority of the time.

Statistically thinking, counters will always be insufficient tools at stopping game play. For a toxic line of game play to be problematic, it has to first arise within the game. That doesn't always happen, but is a statistical event. Afterward, the counter strategy needs to be available. There are multiple layers of randomness at this point that prevent counters from being sufficient. One, the likelihood of 2 events happening, toxic game play was possible AND the counter was available, will always be less than the likelihood of the single event of toxic game play happening. Second, not only does the counter have to be available, but within the specific game case that is happening, it has to actually work within said scenario. Again, the chance of 2 events happening, the counter was available AND the counter worked sufficiently, will always be less than the chance of the counter merely being available.

And there are a number of reasons as to why counters may not be effective at preventing the type of game play that someone doesn't like. It could be that the offensive strategy is just plain too strong to begin with or it may have an inevitability component. Maybe the counter strategy is too weak or doesn't have enough synergy with main strategies to be generally viable.

Additionally, it's often the case that discussion of counter play can fall into speculation. I'm quite certain that nobody in the ToT community has data that shows which patrons tend to prevail in any of the different matchups that can happen. The patrons alone, without looking at the cards that were available at the start of the game because of those patron choices, already gives a huge number of possible variables to explore.

For these reasons, discussions of counter play are extremely lacking. The much better way for a game to be designed is not around counter play and forcing players to deal with design mistakes, but rather the better way for games to be designed is for cards to be balanced. That can include balance that happens as the game becomes more solved by those who are playing and may discover new exploits, even with the same set of cards, as the game ages.

And the glory of a balance change is that it can be undone if it is for some reason ends up too extreme. And we have yet to even discuss the core problem that is leading to a specific type of toxic play patterns which is the abuse of patrons. Many of the patrons can be abused by being used over and over. Rather than relying on counter plays that cannot solve the game mechanic problem that exists with several game pieces, it's much better for design to just strike at the root of the problem by reevaluating patron spam.

It also seems, and I hope not, but it seems like you are underestimating just how many toxic games are happening. Not only because of counters being insufficient, but because of the large swath of players who can't be expected to understand the nuances of the game to the point that they really know what counters what. And again, that idea is even subjective because there isn't necessarily data that shows anyone what counters what. There is a large number of players who would be benefited by changes that mitigate toxic game play because they literally don't know and can't know how to stop that game play.

Additionally, there have been several top, very top, ranked players who heavily rely on toxic game play patterns, including patron spam based strategies, to prove themselves better than everyone else. It's a complete impossibility that anyone going for early game spam cheese tactics is either understanding or playing the game in a holistic way that merits their high ladder placement. They are merely getting results by leaning on the same cheesy tactic every single game. Players, especially at the top ranks when facing one another, should be winning based on their skills and not situations where turning a static game piece in their favor a few times in a row leads to a near unstoppable sequence of latter game winning events.

The whole gestalt of card game design is developers "fixing" problems that they created with overpowered game pieces by introducing "counters" and I am completely willing to tell every single one of them that they are wrong for going about design in such a way.

vuwuv · February 5

Personofsecrets wrote: »

Seraphayel wrote: »

JobooAGS wrote: »

Solariken wrote: »

There are a couple trolls out there who always pick Rajhin and Almalexia and often makes for a really terrible experience. Both decks are extremely unfun.

I just leave any game that has both decks. If you choose those decks, enjoy your cheap victory.

The 5-10 min penalty is worth the wait many times over

Why leave when you can simply choose decks that actively counter their play style and try a win? It doesn’t make sense to outright concede when you still have the power to make it a short match, even if you already picked a deck. You guys are giving yourselves a hard time when there’s an (easy) fix for that.

You seem to think that counters are sufficient ways of dealing with toxic game play.

Needless to say, counters don't always work. Sometimes they are very effective, but not always. And when I say "not always," that can mean that counters aren't sufficient at mitigating toxic game play patterns a majority of the time.

Statistically thinking, counters will always be insufficient tools at stopping game play. For a toxic line of game play to be problematic, it has to first arise within the game. That doesn't always happen, but is a statistical event. Afterward, the counter strategy needs to be available. There are multiple layers of randomness at this point that prevent counters from being sufficient. One, the likelihood of 2 events happening, toxic game play was possible AND the counter was available, will always be less than the likelihood of the single event of toxic game play happening. Second, not only does the counter have to be available, but within the specific game case that is happening, it has to actually work within said scenario. Again, the chance of 2 events happening, the counter was available AND the counter worked sufficiently, will always be less than the chance of the counter merely being available.

And there are a number of reasons as to why counters may not be effective at preventing the type of game play that someone doesn't like. It could be that the offensive strategy is just plain too strong to begin with or it may have an inevitability component. Maybe the counter strategy is too weak or doesn't have enough synergy with main strategies to be generally viable.

Additionally, it's often the case that discussion of counter play can fall into speculation. I'm quite certain that nobody in the ToT community has data that shows which patrons tend to prevail in any of the different matchups that can happen. The patrons alone, without looking at the cards that were available at the start of the game because of those patron choices, already gives a huge number of possible variables to explore.

For these reasons, discussions of counter play are extremely lacking. The much better way for a game to be designed is not around counter play and forcing players to deal with design mistakes, but rather the better way for games to be designed is for cards to be balanced. That can include balance that happens as the game becomes more solved by those who are playing and may discover new exploits, even with the same set of cards, as the game ages.

And the glory of a balance change is that it can be undone if it is for some reason ends up too extreme. And we have yet to even discuss the core problem that is leading to a specific type of toxic play patterns which is the abuse of patrons. Many of the patrons can be abused by being used over and over. Rather than relying on counter plays that cannot solve the game mechanic problem that exists with several game pieces, it's much better for design to just strike at the root of the problem by reevaluating patron spam.

It also seems, and I hope not, but it seems like you are underestimating just how many toxic games are happening. Not only because of counters being insufficient, but because of the large swath of players who can't be expected to understand the nuances of the game to the point that they really know what counters what. And again, that idea is even subjective because there isn't necessarily data that shows anyone what counters what. There is a large number of players who would be benefited by changes that mitigate toxic game play because they literally don't know and can't know how to stop that game play.

Additionally, there have been several top, very top, ranked players who heavily rely on toxic game play patterns, including patron spam based strategies, to prove themselves better than everyone else. It's a complete impossibility that anyone going for early game spam cheese tactics is either understanding or playing the game in a holistic way that merits their high ladder placement. They are merely getting results by leaning on the same cheesy tactic every single game. Players, especially at the top ranks when facing one another, should be winning based on their skills and not situations where turning a static game piece in their favor a few times in a row leads to a near unstoppable sequence of latter game winning events.

The whole gestalt of card game design is developers "fixing" problems that they created with overpowered game pieces by introducing "counters" and I am completely willing to tell every single one of them that they are wrong for going about design in such a way.

I've found out that Orgnum can help against Rajhin spam, but you might need some economy boost first.

Orgnum deck does not have any cards that could amplify Rajhin play (unlike Mora/Psiji c/Ansei). The more cards opponent spams into your deck, the more power you will get from Orgnum). They will have a dilemma of which patron to use.

TumlinTheJolly · February 5

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

@Personofsecrets thank you! Tagged the team to look at your post above, too.

Oh, I have a very good solution for the turn-timer abuse that you could pass on!!! I've been thinking about it for a while:

1. Make the timer much shorter by default
2. As you play cards, the timer extends slightly

This means that players with very few possible moves, who simply want to make others miserable, will be subject to the short timer. Meanwhile, players who actually need time to pull of complex combos will still be able to do so.

NoSoup · February 6

Yeah I loathe Rajhin for this very reason, while I haven't had any 80 minute matches 40 - 60 is fairly common. While my first preference would be to just remove this patron, which isn't going to happen, then the next best option is to just give this Patron the Crow treatment. If he favours you, you can't use him again. If your opponent wants to get into a spam of bewilderment then that's their choice, if they don't they can just leaving him favouring you.

NoSoup · February 6

JobooAGS wrote: »

Solariken wrote: »

There are a couple trolls out there who always pick Rajhin and Almalexia and often makes for a really terrible experience. Both decks are extremely unfun.

I just leave any game that has both decks. If you choose those decks, enjoy your cheap victory.

The 5-10 min penalty is worth the wait many times over

plus the penalty is character based not account based, so if you have two characters that can play ToT you can log on to the other character and instantly queue.

JobooAGS · February 6

Seraphayel wrote: »

JobooAGS wrote: »

Solariken wrote: »

There are a couple trolls out there who always pick Rajhin and Almalexia and often makes for a really terrible experience. Both decks are extremely unfun.

I just leave any game that has both decks. If you choose those decks, enjoy your cheap victory.

The 5-10 min penalty is worth the wait many times over

Why leave when you can simply choose decks that actively counter their playstyle and try a win? It doesn’t make sense to outright concede when you still have the power to make it a short match, even if you already picked a deck. You guys are giving yourselves a hard time when there’s an (easy) fix for that.

One word: Time.

Personofsecrets · February 6

vuwuv wrote: »

Personofsecrets wrote: »

Seraphayel wrote: »

JobooAGS wrote: »

Solariken wrote: »

There are a couple trolls out there who always pick Rajhin and Almalexia and often makes for a really terrible experience. Both decks are extremely unfun.

I just leave any game that has both decks. If you choose those decks, enjoy your cheap victory.

The 5-10 min penalty is worth the wait many times over

Why leave when you can simply choose decks that actively counter their play style and try a win? It doesn’t make sense to outright concede when you still have the power to make it a short match, even if you already picked a deck. You guys are giving yourselves a hard time when there’s an (easy) fix for that.

You seem to think that counters are sufficient ways of dealing with toxic game play.....

I've found out that Orgnum can help against Rajhin spam, but you might need some economy boost first.

Orgnum deck does not have any cards that could amplify Rajhin play (unlike Mora/Psiji c/Ansei). The more cards opponent spams into your deck, the more power you will get from Orgnum). They will have a dilemma of which patron to use.

While what I wrote is still true, I will comment on Sorcerer King because it may suffice as a sufficient counter to Rajhin style gameplay.

First and foremost, it can be that Rajhin is a last pick. In order to counter such a last pick option, someone would have to choose Sorcerer King every single time that they are second player. And that dynamic is toxic in and of itself for a couple of reasons. One, Sorcerer King gives an advantage to the first player due to the power level of some of the 2 cost cards being quite high. First player also get's the first chance to buy the 5 cost agents. Two, the counter picking player would never be able to have another match where they are free to be second player without Sorcerer King which narrows down on their options and gameplay that they may experience.

Next, it's still the case that my general conclusion remains which is that counters don't always work. If first player buys a strong 2 drop like a Sorcerer King card or even another classes card like a Luxury Exports, Scrying Globe, or Vestments and then uses the Rajhin button, their opponent is still in a really bad spot for no other reasons than the starting Tavern cards, having gone second, and toxic Patrons. The real issue remains to be the toxic gameplay enabling mechanics.

Lastly, even if counter picking in this case was foolproof, it would just be exchanging one toxic abusable patron for another. I even lost a game, as a highly experience player, to an opponent who purchased a single card and then used the Sorcerer King button every single turn for the rest of the game. That's unacceptable from a gameplay perspective and it shouldn't be an option even as a potential counter to other toxic gameplay.

Seraphayel · February 6

Personofsecrets wrote: »

Seraphayel wrote: »

JobooAGS wrote: »

Solariken wrote: »

There are a couple trolls out there who always pick Rajhin and Almalexia and often makes for a really terrible experience. Both decks are extremely unfun.

I just leave any game that has both decks. If you choose those decks, enjoy your cheap victory.

The 5-10 min penalty is worth the wait many times over

Why leave when you can simply choose decks that actively counter their play style and try a win? It doesn’t make sense to outright concede when you still have the power to make it a short match, even if you already picked a deck. You guys are giving yourselves a hard time when there’s an (easy) fix for that.

You seem to think that counters are sufficient ways of dealing with toxic game play.

Needless to say, counters don't always work. Sometimes they are very effective, but not always. And when I say "not always," that can mean that counters aren't sufficient at mitigating toxic game play patterns a majority of the time.

I simply don't agree with you in this regard because in my opinion your argumentation is flawed. You're always taking up the role of the victim in all of these games and I don't see why that's the case.

Counters work as much as your allegedly toxic play patterns do. They do work or they don't, depending on how well RNG plays into it. It makes no sense to concede a match before it even started just because you think something might happen.

As someone with free will you can also chose that toxic playstyle yourself if your opponent picks these decks. There's action and there's reaction. Maybe 0,01% of matches are decided in the first round, so there is always a chance for you to turn a match. You just need to know how to counter specific playstyles. This comes with experience. To every deck and to every toxic playstyle there's a counter.

JobooAGS wrote: »

Seraphayel wrote: »

JobooAGS wrote: »

Solariken wrote: »

There are a couple trolls out there who always pick Rajhin and Almalexia and often makes for a really terrible experience. Both decks are extremely unfun.

I just leave any game that has both decks. If you choose those decks, enjoy your cheap victory.

The 5-10 min penalty is worth the wait many times over

Why leave when you can simply choose decks that actively counter their playstyle and try a win? It doesn’t make sense to outright concede when you still have the power to make it a short match, even if you already picked a deck. You guys are giving yourselves a hard time when there’s an (easy) fix for that.

One word: Time.

If time becomes an issue you already made the mistake of choosing the wrong decks to counter your opponent, it's really as simple as that. With Mora no Rahjin game would take 20 or 30 minutes. Honestly, I find it hilarious when players complain about matches that last for half an hour - that's entirely (!) your fault. Good matches from opponents that know how to play and what to play last 10-15 minutes at best.

________

Another issue I have with these posts is that people don't seem to learn. You're falling for this one time, two times, three times... and then? You should know better. If you're repeating your own mistakes that's not the fault of the game or toxic playstyles or whatever. Some complaints are valid, but some - in my opinion - come from a position of a lack of experience.

I'm not trying to attack anyone here, I'm just advocating for a readjustment of mentality in regards to ToT. Remember, even if your opponent picks these problematic decks, what hinders you to play them as they would?

JobooAGS · February 6

Seraphayel wrote: »

Personofsecrets wrote: »

Seraphayel wrote: »

JobooAGS wrote: »

Solariken wrote: »

There are a couple trolls out there who always pick Rajhin and Almalexia and often makes for a really terrible experience. Both decks are extremely unfun.

I just leave any game that has both decks. If you choose those decks, enjoy your cheap victory.

The 5-10 min penalty is worth the wait many times over

Why leave when you can simply choose decks that actively counter their play style and try a win? It doesn’t make sense to outright concede when you still have the power to make it a short match, even if you already picked a deck. You guys are giving yourselves a hard time when there’s an (easy) fix for that.

You seem to think that counters are sufficient ways of dealing with toxic game play.

Needless to say, counters don't always work. Sometimes they are very effective, but not always. And when I say "not always," that can mean that counters aren't sufficient at mitigating toxic game play patterns a majority of the time.

I simply don't agree with you in this regard because in my opinion your argumentation is flawed. You're always taking up the role of the victim in all of these games and I don't see why that's the case.

Counters work as much as your allegedly toxic play patterns do. They do work or they don't, depending on how well RNG plays into it. It makes no sense to concede a match before it even started just because you think something might happen.

As someone with free will you can also chose that toxic playstyle yourself if your opponent picks these decks. There's action and there's reaction. Maybe 0,01% of matches are decided in the first round, so there is always a chance for you to turn a match. You just need to know how to counter specific playstyles. This comes with experience. To every deck and to every toxic playstyle there's a counter.

JobooAGS wrote: »

Seraphayel wrote: »

JobooAGS wrote: »

Solariken wrote: »

There are a couple trolls out there who always pick Rajhin and Almalexia and often makes for a really terrible experience. Both decks are extremely unfun.

I just leave any game that has both decks. If you choose those decks, enjoy your cheap victory.

The 5-10 min penalty is worth the wait many times over

Why leave when you can simply choose decks that actively counter their playstyle and try a win? It doesn’t make sense to outright concede when you still have the power to make it a short match, even if you already picked a deck. You guys are giving yourselves a hard time when there’s an (easy) fix for that.

One word: Time.

If time becomes an issue you already made the mistake of choosing the wrong decks to counter your opponent, it's really as simple as that. With Mora no Rahjin game would take 20 or 30 minutes. Honestly, I find it hilarious when players complain about matches that last for half an hour - that's entirely (!) your fault. Good matches from opponents that know how to play and what to play last 10-15 minutes at best.

________

Another issue I have with these posts is that people don't seem to learn. You're falling for this one time, two times, three times... and then? You should know better. If you're repeating your own mistakes that's not the fault of the game or toxic playstyles or whatever. Some complaints are valid, but some - in my opinion - come from a position of a lack of experience.

I'm not trying to attack anyone here, I'm just advocating for a readjustment of mentality in regards to ToT. Remember, even if your opponent picks these problematic decks, what hinders you to play them as they would?

If Mora was the answer, I would have done that months ago.

It isnt. Instead without fail, Mora only brings trolls when people play Raj and Alma

They intentionally hate whisper you complaining about Mora and how “They just want a good game” then take their turns to the very last second to draw things out therefore taking more time overall in retaliation.

No, ignoring and reporting does jack all except mute the hate whispers.

So yes, my point still stands: Time.

Better to leave those games and eat the penalty than deal with that.

Personofsecrets · February 7

Seraphayel wrote: »

I simply don't agree with you in this regard because in my opinion your argumentation is flawed. You're always taking up the role of the victim in all of these games and I don't see why that's the case.

Counters work as much as your allegedly toxic play patterns do. They do work or they don't, depending on how well RNG plays into it. It makes no sense to concede a match before it even started just because you think something might happen.

As someone with free will you can also chose that toxic playstyle yourself if your opponent picks these decks. There's action and there's reaction. Maybe 0,01% of matches are decided in the first round, so there is always a chance for you to turn a match. You just need to know how to counter specific playstyles. This comes with experience. To every deck and to every toxic playstyle there's a counter.

Why leave when you can simply choose decks that actively counter their playstyle and try a win? It doesn’t make sense to outright concede when you still have the power to make it a short match, even if you already picked a deck. You guys are giving yourselves a hard time when there’s an (easy) fix for that.

If time becomes an issue you already made the mistake of choosing the wrong decks to counter your opponent, it's really as simple as that. With Mora no Rahjin game would take 20 or 30 minutes. Honestly, I find it hilarious when players complain about matches that last for half an hour - that's entirely (!) your fault. Good matches from opponents that know how to play and what to play last 10-15 minutes at best.

________

Another issue I have with these posts is that people don't seem to learn. You're falling for this one time, two times, three times... and then? You should know better. If you're repeating your own mistakes that's not the fault of the game or toxic playstyles or whatever. Some complaints are valid, but some - in my opinion - come from a position of a lack of experience.

I'm not trying to attack anyone here, I'm just advocating for a readjustment of mentality in regards to ToT. Remember, even if your opponent picks these problematic decks, what hinders you to play them as they would?

No, you are attacking others. And it's not welcome. Telling others that they don't have valid experience, especially when that is not true, is an attack. You are familiar enough with what's written here on the ToT board to know this. If we are talking about ranked, over the past year of thousands of games I carried an 85% win rate. When we are talking about unranked, over the past year of thousands of games, I carried a 91% win rate.

Some of the things you are writing are objectively incorrect and have been debunked in this tread. For example, counterpicks are not always possible because it's possible for player 1 to identify a Patron lineup which may benefit them to their liking when picking the 4th Patron which cannot be responded to.

Not only do you have these instances of being incorrect, but you also just explicitly advanced the idea of players utilizing toxic gameplay which is woeful. I have always advocated for better balance, even in my teenage years, and always will because I find it morally suspicious when someone is able to win due to the merrits of the cards (or game mechanics) that they are abusing rather than win because of the merits of their playing skills.

I personally do not stoop to the level of making deck choices for only the reason that they win. I make deck choices that win through the exercise of complex skills. I did so recently in the farewell event for Elder Scrolls Legends where I came in 4th place out of 60 some players and everyone else in the top bracket was commenting on my card choices. One deck that I used was completely unexpected by each opponent. Before the card design team left the game years ago, there was a time where my balance ideas were argued against, but prior to leaving they implimented a number of balance changes that I had been pushing for all along. That's to say that I easily identify gameplay problems that industry professionals eventually come to agree on. Not only are they people of the industry, but they are people who's ideas have earned untold large sums in game revenue. They are designers who have personally won tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands in tournaments. They are people who have placed highly in design contests. And they eventually came around to the uninformed inexperienced opinion of moi.

But that last paragraph doesn't matter as much as the idea that counters are sufficent. They are not. I've posted logical reasoning as to why they are insufficent and you haven't dealt with that idea, but rather insisted multiple times that people somehow make the game less toxic by utilizing evermore toxic strategies against eachother. Again, that is totally woeful from a design perspective. What will make people want to play ToT if every game is bad?

spartaxoxo · February 7

Personofsecrets wrote: »

You are familiar enough with what's written here on the ToT board to know this. If we are talking about ranked, over the past year of thousands of games I carried an 85% win rate. When we are talking about unranked, over the past year of thousands of games, I carried a 91% win rate.

I agree that you definitely know enough about this game to contribute valid information. You're one of the top players. Although frankly, I reject the premise even a bad player can't explain their experience validly. New player experience onboarding experience of this game is abysmal.

But, I do have to wonder, what winrate do you expect to have before you'd consider the game sufficiently balanced for skill over luck? Because a 91% winrate is very high.

vuwuv · February 7

Personofsecrets wrote: »

vuwuv wrote: »

Personofsecrets wrote: »

Seraphayel wrote: »

JobooAGS wrote: »

Solariken wrote: »

There are a couple trolls out there who always pick Rajhin and Almalexia and often makes for a really terrible experience. Both decks are extremely unfun.

I just leave any game that has both decks. If you choose those decks, enjoy your cheap victory.

The 5-10 min penalty is worth the wait many times over

Why leave when you can simply choose decks that actively counter their play style and try a win? It doesn’t make sense to outright concede when you still have the power to make it a short match, even if you already picked a deck. You guys are giving yourselves a hard time when there’s an (easy) fix for that.

You seem to think that counters are sufficient ways of dealing with toxic game play.....

I've found out that Orgnum can help against Rajhin spam, but you might need some economy boost first.

Orgnum deck does not have any cards that could amplify Rajhin play (unlike Mora/Psiji c/Ansei). The more cards opponent spams into your deck, the more power you will get from Orgnum). They will have a dilemma of which patron to use.

While what I wrote is still true, I will comment on Sorcerer King because it may suffice as a sufficient counter to Rajhin style gameplay.

First and foremost, it can be that Rajhin is a last pick. In order to counter such a last pick option, someone would have to choose Sorcerer King every single time that they are second player. And that dynamic is toxic in and of itself for a couple of reasons. One, Sorcerer King gives an advantage to the first player due to the power level of some of the 2 cost cards being quite high. First player also get's the first chance to buy the 5 cost agents. Two, the counter picking player would never be able to have another match where they are free to be second player without Sorcerer King which narrows down on their options and gameplay that they may experience.

Next, it's still the case that my general conclusion remains which is that counters don't always work. If first player buys a strong 2 drop like a Sorcerer King card or even another classes card like a Luxury Exports, Scrying Globe, or Vestments and then uses the Rajhin button, their opponent is still in a really bad spot for no other reasons than the starting Tavern cards, having gone second, and toxic Patrons. The real issue remains to be the toxic gameplay enabling mechanics.

Lastly, even if counter picking in this case was foolproof, it would just be exchanging one toxic abusable patron for another. I even lost a game, as a highly experience player, to an opponent who purchased a single card and then used the Sorcerer King button every single turn for the rest of the game. That's unacceptable from a gameplay perspective and it shouldn't be an option even as a potential counter to other toxic gameplay.

I totally agree that it doesn't work every time and all those special cases (special cases may appear on any decks choice though). Just wanted to say that Orgnum might be the best we've got against hardcore spammers. Anyhow Raj patron prices balancing is absolutely necessary.

sans-culottes · February 7

Yikes. This is one of the many reasons I avoid ToT like the plague. Sorry this is happening to you. It’s bizarre that this hasn’t been resolved.

Personofsecrets · February 7

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Personofsecrets wrote: »

You are familiar enough with what's written here on the ToT board to know this. If we are talking about ranked, over the past year of thousands of games I carried an 85% win rate. When we are talking about unranked, over the past year of thousands of games, I carried a 91% win rate.

I agree that you definitely know enough about this game to contribute valid information. You're one of the top players. Although frankly, I reject the premise even a bad player can't explain their experience validly. New player experience onboarding experience of this game is abysmal.

But, I do have to wonder, what winrate do you expect to have before you'd consider the game sufficiently balanced for skill over luck? Because a 91% winrate is very high.

Yes, your observation is right. I'm merely sharing that my thoughts do not come from a place of inexperience. But inexperienced players certainly are able to have valid criticism as well. Toxic gameplay can be identified by people of all skill levels.

Your next idea isn't exactly where I'm coming from. Although I am informed about game balance when I win or lose due to what I believe to be the power level of cards or game mechanics and although I may personally be benefited if the suggestions that I make were enacted, my win rate isn't of consequence.

I make suggestions that I think would help players across the entire skill spectrum. This goes back to the first paragraph. Anyone can experience toxic game play, but nobody should have to. I think another answer to your question is what I think would be an ideal. Ideally, the better player would always win every single game. That's impossible though. Not only are there random elements in games that prevent such a thing, but it's also the case that a less experienced player can sometimes play a really great game even if their opponent is generally better.

And although I think that balance should be pointed toward that ideal, toxic game elements can toxic for reasons other than making a deterministic win for a player. People discuss that the Rajhin patron ability has a skill component, a vastly overestimated skill component, but even if they are correct, it is also the case that the Rajhin patron is toxic for not being fun. In other words, it allows for players to win for silly reasons such as having a strong first pick like Pounce and following that up with making Bewilderments, but if we assume that is all fine and dandy, it's the case that Bewilderments are bad for other reasons such as being unfun to draw.

So by hashing this all out, I hope to show some nuance regarding that I think everyone is to benefit from certain key changes. And lastly, anyone making the case that changes shouldn't happen is basically declaring that the game balance is perfect as it is right now, but that is just axiomatically untrue. Though I have provided plenty of reasoning regarding that balance.