|
|
Post by The Rancord on Jul 18, 2012 10:40:16 GMT -5
Especially since that didnt change that much with revelation. Before u had alot of carlo grimaldi plus all avilable counters deck.  |
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Jul 18, 2012 10:57:24 GMT -5
Ok, yes I understand the direction of rant sucks. I do agree with that. So I'm gonna stop now then hopefully we don't go back to all the default questions after decklists get posted: "how do you deal with x?" |
|
|
|
Post by lurifaxb on Jul 18, 2012 13:35:56 GMT -5
bla bla bla.... you say we have rush decks, well then we have no problem mentioned above this topic Eeeh? Just trying to help you answer your question mate. You wrote you didn't know what rush decks are. We do not have a lot of rush decks in the meta, but they are there. Also they aren't as powerful as you may hope. Brontobeuf. I understand you, but writing about it here is the best way of notifying the developers to something you want changed. Although we don't want to sound like a broken record, but apparently a lot of people are frustrated about it. |
|
|
|
Post by jemy000 on Jul 30, 2012 12:23:38 GMT -5
I agree with Bronto 100% on this one. Counters make a strong deck that is easy to play and relatively cheap.
Cheap is key. Abbazia decks, for example, are way more annoying IMO, and way better, but they're so expensive to build that I rarely see one. Until some sort of tournament system is implemented nobody can really say 'X is the best deck'.
|
|
|
|
Post by kackman73 on Jul 30, 2012 15:51:26 GMT -5
I agree with Bronto 100% on this one. Counters make a strong deck that is easy to play and relatively cheap. Cheap is key. Abbazia decks, for example, are way more annoying IMO, and way better, but they're so expensive to build that I rarely see one. Until some sort of tournament system is implemented nobody can really say 'X is the best deck'. Regarding a tournament system: I've seen a few people mention a hope for a matchmaking system in the future that might help prevent new people from getting steamrolled by PP or counter decks. I'd like to see something similar, but I'd like it to be based on the cost of the cards in the deck rather than the rank of the player. By "cost of the cards", I certainly don't mean the market cost, though - I mean that each card should have a value assigned to it by type and faction (Templar common being the cheapest, and Assassin Rare the most expensive). Given that not everyone uses a 50 card deck, an average of the card costs would be the determining factor (rather than a total cost). My reasoning for this is pretty straightforward: generally, the Assassin Rares are stronger cards, so a deck stacked with most/all Assassin Rares is probably going to be a stronger deck than one made up of mostly Templar Rares. I know that the matches in which I've just been crushed and in which I've taken the time to inspect my opponent's cards, I've mostly seen "Assassin Rare, AR, AR, AR, AR, etc." I bear no ill will towards those who've managed to collect five PPs, five Ezio Mentors, five Gimignanos, etc., but decks made up of so many Assassin Rares are just disheartening to play against. Let those folk play each other and have at it. Personally, I can handle losing - and losing a lot - but, as others have mentioned, it's going to be discouraging to newer players to lose on day 2 or 3. The other reason I prefer a card cost method over using rank (exp) is that rank is nothing more than time played. Heck, I've made it into the top 200 recently and I'm still missing a good 1/4 of the basic recollection cards, let alone the fact that I'm not anywhere close to being able to replicate some of the more "expensive" decks that I see advocated here. Even if I had some or all of those cards, playing a lot doesn't mean that I'm any good. Anyway, bit of a ramble there, but that's what I'd like to see. Oh, and if some sort of relative matchmaking were implemented, I'd still like to see an open matchmaking like we have now. As frustrating as it is to get beat by expensive cards and decks, it's also one of the best ways to find out about those cards and learn new ways to play. |
|
|
|
Post by Ringel on Jul 30, 2012 17:31:14 GMT -5
Well, any ranking system would not use Game Center rank, that is to be sure.
|
|
nyxeus
Junior Member
"The Pretty Asian"
Mada mada dane - You still have lots more to work on
Posts: 177
|
Post by nyxeus on Jul 30, 2012 19:25:32 GMT -5
I personally think SE's online system is great. It does matchmaking plus you can watch other players' game which is really helpful for beginner.
|
|
|
|
Post by ruggeder on Jul 30, 2012 22:41:51 GMT -5
The only problem with that is someone can buy the game, spend $200 and have some amazing decks with absolutely no ability. I've played against those people before, there out there. I'm sure there is an answer though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Jul 31, 2012 2:23:03 GMT -5
Templar cards are not inferior, they're just less complex. More complex Assassin cards are more expensive and often has drawbacks that can be worked around/exploited.
The balance of power between assassin/templar cards is certainly not as simple as "assassin better". Look at all the counters out there, for example.
And yes we want a competitive tiered system so that experienced players play experienced players. For example I'm on level 35 (I think), and I doubt that if I played other level 35 players I'd be facing noobs. Whether other level 35 players have gotten 5 of everything is irrelevant - they have just as much experience as I do and shouldn't be surprised to see Patronages and other expensive cards.
In this way I think it's kinda easy to implement matchmaking based on the levels that we're currently gaining for really no other reason at all. But all in good time, hopefully.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brontobeuf on Jul 31, 2012 3:49:25 GMT -5
Price of a deck is not a good way to evaluate its strenght.
|
|
|
|
Post by lurifaxb on Jul 31, 2012 3:54:55 GMT -5
I agree with Tuism here (edit: and Bronto). If it was solely based on some value of the cards I would meet noobs with cheap effective decks like my uprising of the Plebs. And when I switch to more expensive deck I would meet someone else. I want to meet experienced players all the time. The current ranking and level is not equal to skill but it is the closet thing we have right now.
A future system using ELO or something like it would be good, but until then it should be based on rank/level.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Rancord on Jul 31, 2012 4:20:45 GMT -5
Atm im playing mostly rush decks to grind credits, and leave when i get a stronghold in the face or get to many things countered. That way im not playing most consistent decks, but i get 9 wins and 5 leaves/losses very fast wich is enough for 500
|
|
|
|
Post by kackman73 on Jul 31, 2012 4:31:08 GMT -5
Fair points that not all Assassin rares are better than all Templar rares. I'm just trying to come up with something that makes deck-building even more important.
Consider:
You make a deck worth 500 (all numbers made up). Sure, you can beat a deck that's worth 5,000 but poorly constructed, but wouldn't it be more fun to see if you can create a 500 deck that is capable of beating most or all other 400-600 cost decks? Maybe some of you feel differently, but I think it'd be fun to have a matchmaking option that tries to match you up with someone whose deck was closest in cost to yours.
This even takes into account the fact that some rares are better than others, some uncommons are better than others, and so forth. Whatever type of deck you put together - expensive, cheap, in between - you get to find out how it fares against decks with a theoretically similar value. Perhaps you discover that your all Assassin Rare deck isn't as good as someone else's, and you tweak your deck accordingly.
Finally, I'd say this even takes care of the folks who drop $200 on animus credits right off the bat. Who would you rather have them play: people using the starting deck, or other people with access to the same cards? If we go by rank/level, the person who spends a bunch of cash gets to enjoy an insane advantage over the other noobs, even if s/he doesn't make the best decks. Go by cost, and that person has to learn quickly how to best use all their fancy cards or get eaten up by the vets.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Jul 31, 2012 4:40:21 GMT -5
i've seen plenty of crap decks laced with plenty of expensive cards. That also means I can't play with experimental decks that just happen to have expensive cards cos I'll only meet crazy decks that'll whip my ass.
Price is not a factor, should never be. Plus your "deck price index" would fluctuate from day to day - hell, hour to hour, minute to minute.
That's just MAJORLY meh.
|
|
|
|
Post by falkinator2000 on Jul 31, 2012 5:57:41 GMT -5
I would also prefer to play the best players all the time. Right now it takes forever to figure out if a deck is really good and worth spending time tuning. The AI decks are mostly a joke (though I do test against them for a first run through with any new deck idea because I can use the triple speed button), and the matchmaking system puts me up against noobs with crappy 100 card decks 80% of the time.
When I finally meet someone worthwhile I might get a bad draw or he might get a bad draw, and the game is not really a contest. In the end, there are very few meaningful matches.
On the other hand, I don't want to play the same player all the time, and I think this is the problem. Our player base simply isn't big enough for a meaningful competetive matchmaking system (except perhaps organized play).
Sure, I want to face the toughest opposition. But I don't want to play more than 2 or 3 games in a row against the same opponent. I also don't want to wait more than ~20 seconds for an opponent.
All told, the current system is probably close to the best it can be. A daily or weekly tournament would be awesome though! Heck, I'd probably be willing to pay 1 or 2$ to participate in a tournament (which is more than I have spent on cards).
|
|
