JobooAGS wrote: »

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?

My intention is not to attack anyone, but all I've read here are complaints and most of the issues talked about can (easily) be prevented, as I tried to lay out.

What's objectively incorrect? That there are counters to every deck? To every patron? And "debunked" by who, you? Honestly, I think your attitude (I easily identify gameplay problems that industry professionals eventually come to agree on) is not helpful. I never doubted your experience, only your mentality tackling these issues. In regards to ToT, I'm also a very seasoned and experienced player. I think it's unnecessary to state that, otherwise I wouldn't be discussing here.

The only thing that regularly turns games against you is the RNG presented by the tavern. It's neither the patron choice of your opponent nor the lack of meaningful counters to that. You can counter every patron choice, but you cannot counter bad RNG.

To play the game as it is presented to you, meaning in its status quo, is not toxic play, even if you might deem it as that. And that alone makes every toxic strategy counterable with the exact same strategy. Toxic is the word you use, I attribute this to only one of all decks and it's Crow. Patron spam requires a level of knowledge and skill to be sufficient and therefore it's not toxic, it's a style of gameplay. So I'm not sure what makes you the authority to say that this gameplay is toxic and that isn't.

I often pick Rahjin because most players don't know how to play it. They resort to early patron spam, leaving them without good tavern cards or writs, eventually resulting in their loss. Most players pick the easiest patron combo of Crow + Reachmen as it's pretty failproof when you stack enough purple cards. Requires no skill at all, just some lucky RNG. Heck, my first patron choice often is Psijik and if the second player picks Crow my last patron will either be Rahjin (although Psijik basically counters the patron completely) or Mora.

My intention is neither to attack anyone nor to sound condescending. But we seem to have completely different experiences in regards to ToT although we play both at the higher ranks. Our experiences might be different, but they're worth the same.

I think that Crow+Red Eagle is about the only somewhat good counter to Rahjiin spam. It requires two decks and for those who don't default to it, also prior knowledge that the user will be Rahjiin. Meanwhile, Rahjiin is pretty much the most reliable deck in the game and strips the opponent of most counterplay options in other decks because Rahjiin gives the user an answer to almost all of it. It's an extremely stacked deck and the opponent doesn't even have to play to win but play to not lose. You can end up with an 80 minute game because the Rahjiin user is not only not pushed toward victory but also can put the opponent in a position where they can't win regardless of their skill level. Quite easy to beat an opponent that never actually gets to play anything.

We can chalk that up to RNG favoring the user in those extreme games. But RNG favoring the user doesn't wind up with 80 minute games for any other deck. Every deck results in a steam roll if the RNG is too one sided. But, those games aren't 80 minutes. They are over quickly and the opponent actually gets to play.

Also, I can think of several good ways to beat Crow. It doesn't bother me at all. It's got a variety of ways to beat it and when I get rolled, at least the match was over quickly.

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I think that Crow+Red Eagle is about the only somewhat good counter to Rahjiin spam.

Why not Mora?

I'm a returning player, so apologies for late response and input into this topic.

I played ToT a lot back when it released, and now that I'm back in the game it takes up most of my game time. I never won a ranked season but I was consistently in the top 5% of the players at the end of each. @Lijka on the EU servers.

I agree that Rajhin patron could do with adjusted cost of using it, especially if you're already favoured but other than that I find the deck fun, mostly because of the Moonlit Illusion card. Same reason why Red Eagle is always my choice of a patron, regardless of the game. It is not the deck itself that creates "toxic" play. On the contrary, I think it allows some clever tactics to be employed when combined with other decks, patron spam aside. My personal idea of "toxic" gameplay is when someone chooses the deck combo of, for example, Almalexia + Crow, or Crow + Celarus, etc, so basically decks that in later stages of the game are virtually guaranteed to use up the full turn time to play, mostly due to extremely slow animations of drawing and discarding the cards. I would have that adjusted before anything else because for me THAT is "toxic", complete and utter lack of respect for your own and your opponent's time.
I recognise that Rajhin can add to the problem in those cases by drawing the game out even further but I simply don't choose it if my opponent picked any of the "long-play" decks.

This is another thing: whatever four patrons get used, BOTH players have access to them, both can utilise them, in any way they want. I hate Almalexia with a passion but if my opponent chose it and it happens to be beneficial to me to use it, I will. If three or four long-play decks are chosen (Rajhin among them) then it means both of the players wanted it. If both players want a quick power-play, then Pelin, Red Eagle, Hunding and Mora will be chosen. It is as simple as that.

So, while your experiences are absolutely valid, @Personofsecrets, I find your arguments disingenuous, in the sense that it seems to me that you simply don't like that deck, therefore you paint it as the sole source of your (and other people's) woes.
You also dismiss other people's experiences as less important than yours.

Similarly, you claim that it's the new player experience you care about while in the same breath claiming that in your ideal world, the better player would always win. To me that sounds like gatekeeping because you happen to be an excellent player.
I think that RNG should be heavily skewed towards the first few games of a new player (not in ranked, ofc, and if you're new and go straight into ranked, then it's on you), it's a common thing in pvp games. We want more people playing, not less, because they get crushed each time they try to play with someone. And the heavy RNG component of ToT is the guarantee of a larger player-base.

Sure, it is frustrating to lose to someone clearly worse at the game just because of atrocious RNG but from your w/l ratio, it does not seem like it's much of a problem for you.

TLDR: cost of patron use/spam for Rajhin should get adjusted but the deck itself and its playstyle are a good and unique addition to the game, there are far worse decks out there.

Elana wrote: »

I'm a returning player, so apologies for late response and input into this topic.

I played ToT a lot back when it released, and now that I'm back in the game it takes up most of my game time. I never won a ranked season but I was consistently in the top 5% of the players at the end of each. @Lijka on the EU servers.

I agree that Rajhin patron could do with adjusted cost of using it, especially if you're already favoured but other than that I find the deck fun, mostly because of the Moonlit Illusion card. Same reason why Red Eagle is always my choice of a patron, regardless of the game. It is not the deck itself that creates "toxic" play. On the contrary, I think it allows some clever tactics to be employed when combined with other decks, patron spam aside. My personal idea of "toxic" gameplay is when someone chooses the deck combo of, for example, Almalexia + Crow, or Crow + Celarus, etc, so basically decks that in later stages of the game are virtually guaranteed to use up the full turn time to play, mostly due to extremely slow animations of drawing and discarding the cards. I would have that adjusted before anything else because for me THAT is "toxic", complete and utter lack of respect for your own and your opponent's time.
I recognise that Rajhin can add to the problem in those cases by drawing the game out even further but I simply don't choose it if my opponent picked any of the "long-play" decks.

This is another thing: whatever four patrons get used, BOTH players have access to them, both can utilise them, in any way they want. I hate Almalexia with a passion but if my opponent chose it and it happens to be beneficial to me to use it, I will. If three or four long-play decks are chosen (Rajhin among them) then it means both of the players wanted it. If both players want a quick power-play, then Pelin, Red Eagle, Hunding and Mora will be chosen. It is as simple as that.

So, while your experiences are absolutely valid, @Personofsecrets, I find your arguments disingenuous, in the sense that it seems to me that you simply don't like that deck, therefore you paint it as the sole source of your (and other people's) woes.
You also dismiss other people's experiences as less important than yours.

Similarly, you claim that it's the new player experience you care about while in the same breath claiming that in your ideal world, the better player would always win. To me that sounds like gatekeeping because you happen to be an excellent player.
I think that RNG should be heavily skewed towards the first few games of a new player (not in ranked, ofc, and if you're new and go straight into ranked, then it's on you), it's a common thing in pvp games. We want more people playing, not less, because they get crushed each time they try to play with someone. And the heavy RNG component of ToT is the guarantee of a larger player-base.

Sure, it is frustrating to lose to someone clearly worse at the game just because of atrocious RNG but from your w/l ratio, it does not seem like it's much of a problem for you.

TLDR: cost of patron use/spam for Rajhin should get adjusted but the deck itself and its playstyle are a good and unique addition to the game, there are far worse decks out there.

While you may frame things as being about my mere preferences, as you've read, what informs me are higher values. Values such as a games winner should be decided by skill. I could make things personal in the same way you have by saying something like "you are just promoting the idea of RNG based gameplay because you personally like it." Even if that has some degree of truth, the idea doesn't pass as a debate point because personal preferences can be stripped away from mechanics that are either good or not good for a game.

And to speak about how this idea is related to Rajhin, I can point to the many opponents who I've had and who howl, whine, and complain when Rajhin is played the correct way as I do something like purchase Luxury Exports and use the Rajhin Patron button on the first turn.

That may not be the type of gameplay that I like, and it isn't because the Bewilderment cards can result in unecessary added levels of RNG into games. That said, I'm playing the right way. And, as you mentioned, everyone has the option to play the right way. It just so happens that people begin to howl, whine, and complain about this because Rajhin being played the right way (the way that maximizes winning odds), is incredibly toxic by being unecessarily RNG dependent and time consuming.

I have this additional thought too which is that many of these opponents just wish that they had gotten a dirty and cheap advantage so that they could be the one using the toxic patron button. You may think that I am gatekeeping by wanting a good game, but what are many people doing who want to abuse Rajhin for no other reason than it being funny? And please note, even if Rajhin is being used correctly, that can still feel like gatekeeping to a player such as a new player or my opponents.

In the end, if we both agree that game mechanics which unecessarily draw out a game are toxic, then you don't really have any reason to try and counter what I write, because we agree on that basic principle. And that principle is in line with the idea that the better player should win. Why should the better player win? Because this is a contest. Why is it important to hone a game around that principle? Because our time is valuable and a better player will prevail regardless if you make them do something 100 times or 10,000 times. So there is no purpose to mechanics that skew gameplay toward us having to prove our skills in extremly small margins over 10,000 games rather than just 100 games. And that ties into why RNG layers are bad as well.

Elana wrote: »

Personofsecrets wrote: »

While you may frame things as being about my mere preferences, as you've read, what informs me are higher values.

That is "objectively untrue" and here's proof:

Personofsecrets wrote: »

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.

Personofsecrets wrote: »

For example, I don't really care about Crow, maybe it could have some balance changes, but I don't really care. That's why I generally don't get in the way of other peoples dialogue when they were discussing the Crow Patron.

Personofsecrets wrote: »

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 hate to break it to you, but you're just human like the rest of us, mere mortals, and your ideas and desired changes to the game are informed by your preferences. I have no issue with that, what more, as you pointed out, I agree with the genral premise of your post that Rajhin has to be adjusted. It's not nearly as much of a problem as you are trying to make it out to be, and therefore I would prefer other mechanics were looked at first.

What I do take issue with is you trying to tell others what the "correct" way to play is, and furthermore trying to push those ideas to the devs so that they would change the game to suit your playstyle. You arbitrarily decided that what YOU consider toxic everyone already does or has to consider as such.

Personofsecrets wrote: »

That said, I'm playing the right way. And, as you mentioned, everyone has the option to play the right way.

So, everyone has the option to play your way? Surely, you must see how arrogant that sounds? Regardless of how good and experienced player you are, you are not the end all and be all of card games, and please don't do what you accused @Seraphayel of doing, which is invalidate the experiences and preferences of others.

One additional note: the wall of text you posted about countering one patron with another not always being possible? You're right, it's not, and it never should be. Nothing should be foolproof. Quite frankly, patron spam isn't either. Otherwise most games would look the same, especially if you remove the RNG element, which is something you seem to be in favour of?

Best,
Lijka

If you think that what I'm saying is not true, then you please explain your reasoning for parsing out single posts. For example, I can actually explain why one of those quoted posts are completely in line with the idea that I'm informed by higher values.

"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."

The reason that I do not stoop to the level of making deck choices for the mere reason that they win is exactly because I am informed by higher values such as skill based gameplay being one of such values.

In that case, what you pointed out doesn't make sense for you to prove your point. Furthermore, I don't really see the connection to the other posts at all, so you'll have to explain your ideas behind those ones.

Everyone has their own truth, but there is objective truth as well (as you should agree to since you wrote that I've made some objective errors). It's my observation that many Rajhin users hate to find out that objective truth when they are down a small material advantage and get themselves a bewilderment to play with. If someone had evidence, even something such as their experience, to suggest that I don't know the objective truth regarding the Rajhin patron, then they are welcome to come here, post their experience, and post their win rate which helps to validate their ideas. Even if they have a lower win rate, maybe they could be right. Maybe they could be partially right. But I higly doubt that they could counter the idea of the power (and toxicity) of the bewilderment mechanics for players that already facing an opponent with a small material advantage such as a strong gold generator or Agent.

Whether Rajhin is only issue 1.1 instead of issue 1 doesn't really matter to me. The issues with ToT shouldn't even be thought of like that. There are many issues and they are synergistic with eachother in different ways that caus bad experiences. Bewilderment cards are bad for design reasons such as powerful starts leading to their spamming being a super viable strategy to win, but also mechanical reasons in how they function being random and slow. The evidence shows that the design team is not very open to many of the balance suggestions that have been made here. Evidence shows that they aren't open to fixing the animation and game mechanic speed issue either. I personally reported on that problematic part of ToT a very long time ago and nothing has been done about it. A number of other mechanic issues that I've reported on over the years actually have seen attention and improvement, but not animation speed, oh no.

Everyone has the option to play they way that they like. I'm likely a top advocate for the idea that people can only play the way that they like because I believe that it is extremly difficult, maybe impossibe some times, for people to change their various idiosynchrasies when it comes to what they are able to achieve game play wise. An outside thinker of that idea is T90Official of the Age of Empires 2 fandom who goes out of their way to shows viewers games where players have their own way of playing, set in stone, and they do it no matter what. I recommend viewing his videos on players like Isit, Fatslob, and Dark Elf.

You framing the matter to be about "all of card games" shows a lack of required nuance because there are very many card games which require many different types of skills or mindsets to be successful at. You or I may be very good at slamming peoples faces in with Bewilderment cards, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we will be able to understand the complex summoning chains of Yu-Gi-Oh! or best predict the opponents next move in the complex Legacy metagame of Magic the Gathering.

On your last comment about counters, yes, that's why counters aren't the most useful thing to bring up. That's why I'm skeptikal when someone may say something like "Rajhin counters Crow." That's the wrong way to view things, whether it works as a counter is completely dependent on the type of game that is played, and the idea glorifies toxic Rajhin gameplay for a marginal reason. The idea of counterplay isn't something that I think designers should really use when making game pieces. Or, if they do, yes that random element should be very carefully controlled by a single card being a viable counter to a vast number of different game pieces or occurrences.

One balance issue I don't understand is why the decks appear to have a limited number of each card but the cards issued by patrons are seemingly unlimited. This makes no sense to me. Are people walking around with huge sacks of Bewilderment cards with their Rahjiin decks? Why can't each deck have a limited number of these cards? If all the cards are in play, players should still be able to pay the patron to gain favor but not have another card issued until one is taken out of play by either destruction or trade. That still allows for the strategy but limits it maybe 4 cards not 40.

This may trigger some people, but I also think there should be a 'justice' system that discourages people from forcing people to concede. In the course of a month, it is reasonable to assume that some people might occasionally concede a match due to life issues coming up. But as mentioned in earlier posts there are players intentionally dragging out games or spamming Bewilderment cards to most likely make people concede. I think it is a reasonable solution that every match conceded against someone after the third should end in a draw for both players instead of a win. Players with toxic play styles may get three wins from people conceding but the rest of the month they wouldn't get anywhere with it because they wouldn't get any more wins unless the match is played to the end. Players conceding the game would still get the time out timer but the time after each concede would increase gradually making it take longer and longer to get matches. This would be done to discourage people from conceding matches just because they were losing.

Two either very stubborn or inexperienced players facing each other.