CyberneticPony | 2015-04-14 21:41:02 |
I am getting really sick of people at about my level that play a single class and ruin the game for everyone else. In competitive play, you CANNOT play one class because the tournament rules prohibit you from using the same class more than once throughout.
However, the majority of people near the level 14 mark are just single classers. They only play Dominator or Necromancer or Chronomancer because they are skilless losers that have to abuse terrible class balance to actually get to their position on the leaderboard.
I have had to blacklist a huge number of these terrible people but have reached the point it's actually a lot harder to find games.
Can we please seperate the leaderboard for random play and non-random play? Because these non-random players are actually stifling fair competition.
HeadphonesGirl | 2015-04-14 22:41:50 |
You already have the solution of blacklisting players who don't play the game how you want them to. I see you don't like that because it reduces your number of available opponents. But what you suggest, separating them from players who play under your approved rules, would do exactly the same thing.
CyberneticPony | 2015-04-14 22:50:14 |
You already have the solution of blacklisting players who don't play the game how you want them to. I see you don't like that because it reduces your number of available opponents. But what you suggest, separating them from players who play under your approved rules, would do exactly the same thing. Sure it does, but I wouldn't mind playing the game with mono players if it didn't affect rating. I just think when it comes to rating, we should play under the intended rules. These are NOT my rules fyi, these are the rules set by the tournament organisers, and it has even been said multiple times by the developers that this game was designed for playing with random hands, and was not designed for people who simply try to score ramp by playing the OP class. HeadphonesGirl | 2015-04-14 23:35:43 |
these are the rules set by the tournament organisers, and it has even been said multiple times by the developers that this game was designed for playing with random hands,
The rules set for the tournaments are only set for the tournaments. They could easily impose the same rules on all lobby play if they wanted to, but they don't, so to me it seems the logical conclusion is that ladder play is intended allow for mono players. Agreed on the hands, it is designed for random hands and mono players still get them. I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to stick with one class if they want to when the system allows for this. If a class is overpowered it should be nerfed, rather than splitting the rankings over it. It seems to me like the only class that is widely agreed to be overpowered at this point is time, and maybe possibly vampire I guess. I think pretty much everyone agrees that class should be nerfed. Hopefully it will be soon. Outside of that I can't see why it would be problematic for anyone to play just one class. Plus, the opposite applies -- if you play one of the weakest classes only, wouldn't that be putting you at a disadvantage against someone who goes all random?
CyberneticPony | 2015-04-15 00:02:31 |
... The rules set for the tournaments are only set for the tournaments. They could easily impose the same rules on all lobby play if they wanted to, but they don't, so to me it seems the logical conclusion is that ladder play is intended allow for mono players.
Agreed on the hands, it is designed for random hands and mono players still get them. I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to stick with one class if they want to when the system allows for this. If a class is overpowered it should be nerfed, rather than splitting the rankings over it.
It seems to me like the only class that is widely agreed to be overpowered at this point is time, and maybe possibly vampire I guess. I think pretty much everyone agrees that class should be nerfed. Hopefully it will be soon. Outside of that I can't see why it would be problematic for anyone to play just one class.
Plus, the opposite applies -- if you play one of the weakest classes only, wouldn't that be putting you at a disadvantage against someone who goes all random?
So what you're saying it's intended to allow people to play what they want so that they can climb rank simply by abusing balance? Alright then, guess I'm abusing the broken classes from now on then.
Edit: This means I've just unblacklisted about 30-40 people.
Modified by CyberneticPony on 2015-04-15 00:03:21 HeadphonesGirl | 2015-04-15 00:17:19 |
... So what you're saying it's intended to allow people to play what they want so that they can climb rank simply by abusing balance? Alright then, guess I'm abusing the broken classes from now on then.
Edit: This means I've just unblacklisted about 30-40 people.
This all sounds great to me. I'm not being facetious. If you'd like to "abuse" balance, go ahead. The game is what it is. If more people use the strongest classes and boost their win rate this theoretically results in more nerfs to it. And I've always thought blacklisting people is lame for just about any reason. But no, I'm not agreeing with you that anything is intended to allow "abuse." Any game with a variety of playable options in it is always by its very nature going to have stronger and weaker options and something is always going to have to be the best. Picking this one isn't abusing anything, it's playing the game.
Modified by HeadphonesGirl on 2015-04-15 00:18:18 CyberneticPony | 2015-04-15 00:26:06 |
... This all sounds great to me. I'm not being facetious.
If you'd like to "abuse" balance, go ahead. The game is what it is. If more people use the strongest classes and boost their win rate this theoretically results in more nerfs to it. And I've always thought blacklisting people is lame for just about any reason.
But no, I'm not agreeing with you that anything is intended to allow "abuse." Any game with a variety of playable options in it is always by its very nature going to have stronger and weaker options and something is always going to have to be the best. Picking this one isn't abusing anything, it's playing the game.
Yeah, but when the stronger options are so outlandishly autoplay because they're so obviously broken, you know something is not right.
in my opinion there is no such "class imbalance" in the game. the advantage of playing with a specific class (compared to playing full random*) is almost purely because of the fact that those players have gotten better at using it - they have more practice with it compared to the others. i agree that control and time are slightly stronger classes than the rest but we're talking numbers here that cannot possibly alter your game experience (except maybe in, say 1 out of 100 games statistically speaking). necro does indeed provide an advantage at those levels because playing against it gets harder the less experience someone has (it is very good at punishing mistakes) but i don't think i would consider that as being unfair...
* btw i strongly believe that playing full random is better for you as a player in the long run, since you become familiar with all classes and understand their strengths and weaknesses in a better way. then you know how to best play against them
Modified by filip on 2015-04-15 01:21:04
Yeah, but when the stronger options are so outlandishly autoplay because they're so obviously broken, you know something is not right.
i completely and totally disagree. seriously man, you are dead wrong in this matter... i mean no offence, i hope none is taken
Modified by filip on 2015-04-15 08:14:46
i suggest playing them (instead of blacklisting) BUT choosing a class that is best suited against the one they keep using! that way YOU will have the advantage. here are the latest stats about class match-ups currently available to us:
Modified by filip on 2015-04-15 00:50:05 HeadphonesGirl | 2015-04-15 00:53:31 |
... Yeah, but when the stronger options are so outlandishly autoplay because they're so obviously broken, you know something is not right.
They aren't. Time's win rate is the highest and it is only a few points over 50%.
CyberneticPony | 2015-04-15 01:04:23 |
"Currently available to us." Those stats are simply wrong. They're out of date. If we actually got the current stats, they'd be completely off the mark.
Edit: Note, I also said "options" not classes. I suspect certain cards are pretty much "draw and high chance of win, don't draw and high chance of lose" in a lot of those classes. Modified by CyberneticPony on 2015-04-15 01:15:34
"Currently available to us."
Those stats are simply wrong. They're out of date. If we actually got the current stats, they'd be completely off the mark.
but why would that be? correct me if i'm wrong, but the only changes since those stats were released are either nerfs in the classes you are referring to as overpowered, or buffs in the other classes. moreover, i think the 2014 table is actually under the exact same version we are playing today. cooler, if you are reading this could you please provide fresh stats so we can settle this and call it a day?
also, i would like to hear what do you think about my suggestion in principle?
Modified by filip on 2015-04-15 01:17:15 HeadphonesGirl | 2015-04-15 01:20:08 |
"Currently available to us."
Those stats are simply wrong. They're out of date. If we actually got the current stats, they'd be completely off the mark.
Edit: Note, I also said "options" not classes.
I suspect certain cards are pretty much "draw and high chance of win, don't draw and high chance of lose" in a lot of those classes. But time has only gotten nerfed. You're suggesting there's been a dramatic increase in its win rate? Why?
just one more thing: please click on my name and check out my stats. i have played more than 17.500 games (!) using full random almost exclusively. my win-rates range from 55% to 60% maximum. control, illusion, goblins, time, war priest, vampires and cultist are all 58% or more. how would you explain this?
Modified by filip on 2015-04-15 01:31:00 CyberneticPony | 2015-04-15 01:37:17 |
just one more thing: please click on my name and check out my stats. i have played more than 17.500 games (!) using full random almost exclusively. my win-rates range from 55% to 60% maximum. control, illusion, goblins, time, war priest, vampires and cultist are all 58% or more. how would you explain this?
Joined pre-current patch, and are higher skill than average. This means nothing for class balance.
CyberneticPony | 2015-04-15 01:38:17 |
... But time has only gotten nerfed. You're suggesting there's been a dramatic increase in its win rate? Why?
Synergistic interactions; for example, the buffs to Troll and Bargul could have buffed Time. Looking at a class in a vacuum is quite simple of you.
Modified by CyberneticPony on 2015-04-15 01:38:36 HeadphonesGirl | 2015-04-15 02:30:48 |
... Synergistic interactions; for example, the buffs to Troll and Bargul could have buffed Time. Looking at a class in a vacuum is quite simple of you.
Those buffs occurred in March of 2014 when v 1.33 was released. Cooler has since posted stats after that and time has never been more than 53-54% win rate as far as I recall. I don't know where the stats filip posted are pulled from, maybe he could let us know the date the file was created on the most recent one. I think you will find it is from significantly after Troll and Bargul received their buffs.
Wavelength | 2015-04-15 05:32:53 |
I kind of stopped caring about this topic near the end of the first post when you accused mono-players of being "terrible people", but just for the record, I specifically agree with filip's assertions about winrates.
By the way, I almost never use Random.
I don't know where the stats filip posted are pulled from, maybe he could let us know the date the file was created on the most recent one.
mouse over the little thumbnails for the original file names (which contain the dates: feb 2013 to sep 2014). these files were posted here in the forum by cooler at some points
Modified by filip on 2015-04-15 08:14:05
Joined pre-current patch, and are higher skill than average. This means nothing for class balance.
like we told you above, patches only made the situation better regarding this matter. please, either address our argument or stop repeating the same claims
also, please explain why higher skill would affect class balance
Modified by filip on 2015-04-15 08:14:28
Synergistic interactions; for example, the buffs to Troll and Bargul could have buffed Time. Looking at a class in a vacuum is quite simple of you.
ah now i get it. you're saying that changes in basic elemental cards are making control, time and necro better than the rest. do you really believe that this kind of thing could have such a dramatic effect on class stats? (assuming the classes were more or less balanced pre-patch) btw i have confirmed that the stats of the last file (sep 2014) are taken from the same game version that we are currently using today (ver 1.33 released on mar 2014) which kind of disproves your argument by itself
Modified by filip on 2015-04-15 09:18:56
i suggest playing them (instead of blacklisting) BUT choosing a class that is best suited against the one they keep using! that way YOU will have the advantage.
also, i would like to hear what do you think about my suggestion in principle?
Modified by filip on 2015-04-15 08:12:14 CyberneticPony | 2015-04-15 11:07:00 |
I kind of stopped caring about this topic near the end of the first post when you accused mono-players of being "terrible people", but just for the record, I specifically agree with filip's assertions about winrates.
By the way, I almost never use Random. Someone that doesn't random isn't a mono player. A mono player plays mostly only one class, in case you were offended. They are "terrible" because they specifically ruin the game for other people. They have no desire to improve or practice, and often just win down to their class being broken.
mamoulian | 2015-04-15 11:10:36 |
CyberneticPony | 2015-04-15 11:31:23 |
I believe these are fresh stats:
http://www.prospectro.net/welcome/331-statistika-klassov-v-spektromansere.html#comment7744 Thank you for the updated stats, as you guys can now see, there are way more 60% win rates than there were in filip's stats, and I'm more inclined to accept this. Assuming a broken card is in a class, you only have a 50% of drawing it. I'd love to see win statistics by card, even though that may be a logistical nightmare. Also, you have a 33% chance to draw a synergistic card in a house. But asking for combinations of basic card/class would just be too data intensive and will probably need more introspection. I doubt the basic house cards need to be changed much.
They have no desire to improve or practice, and often just win down to their class being broken.
there are no "broken" classes in this game. there are only classes with 53% max winrate. i am trying to talk to you in a civilised manner and present logical arguments grounded in fact and reason but you keep ignoring my comments and restating your claims without providing any sort of explanation or evidence. i would say this attitude is borderline rude, while i have been perfectly polite. i am pretty sure you can beat those guys in their own game by counter-picking your class based on the latest statistics provided by me or by mamoulian above
Modified by filip on 2015-04-15 11:46:43
Thank you for the updated stats, as you guys can now see, there are way more 60% win rates than there were in filip's stats, and I'm more inclined to accept this.
when evaluating a class's winrate we should only look at the total percentage, not the specific percentage vs another specific class. having classes with good match-ups and bad match-ups is perfectly normal and healthy for a balanced card game. what constitutes a "broken" class is a total percentage of 55-60% or more. i am urging you to use the individual percentages to your advantage vs those players and beat them at their own game (by picking mad hermit or golem master vs control for example)
Modified by filip on 2015-04-15 11:49:04 CyberneticPony | 2015-04-15 11:50:07 |
...
there are no "broken" classes in this game. there are only classes with 55% max winrate. i am trying to talk to you in a civilised manner and present logical arguments grounded in fact and reason but you keep ignoring my comments and restating your claims without providing any sort of explanation or evidence. i would say this attitude is borderline rude, while i have been perfectly polite. i am pretty sure you can beat those guys in their own game by counter-picking your class based on the latest statistics provided by me or by mamoulian above
You could counterpick it, but that doesn't mean they aren't broken just because something else happens to be particularly good vs it. It just means one class exploits a flaw in an otherwise powerful system. They can take the loss to my counterpicking, but they will still have no problems with dunking other players consistently.
I actually observed this earlier, but if you average the level of mono and non-mono players online at nearly any given time, the average level of mono players is higher. Do they gain skill faster because they are playing less broadly? I doubt this because the margin is still way too high for this to be the sole explanation. We're not talking about 2-3 levels, I'd hazard a guess and say it was about 5-6! If you can give me an idea on how I could go about confirming this, I'd love to know a possible method. It seems really tedious to go through the website leaderboard manually.
having classes with good match-ups and bad match-ups is perfectly normal and healthy for a balanced card game.
so let me get this straight: you actually disagree with the above statement?
Modified by filip on 2015-04-15 11:54:13 CyberneticPony | 2015-04-15 12:11:48 |
...
so let me get this straight: you actually disagree with the above statement?
Yes. For a healthy card game, you need matchups to have at the very least a reasonable degree to give players a chance to win. Many board states I simply have no chance to win. I can look at the pool and surrender turn 1 because I know I've lost. The problem also manifests in the inverse; I can look at the pool and confidently autoplay cards because it is extremely improbable the opponent can stop it. There are games where this doesn't happen; see Yomi for a good example.
Yes. For a healthy card game, you need matchups to have at the very least a reasonable degree to give players a chance to win.
isn't 40% a reasonable degree?
Many board states I simply have no chance to win. I can look at the pool and surrender turn 1 because I know I've lost. The problem also manifests in the inverse; I can look at the pool and confidently autoplay cards because it is extremely improbable the opponent can stop it.
this is simply not true in spectromancer. trust me. it only looks that way because you are just not skilled enough yet. i have only one thing to say to you: play vs plynx. you will be enlightened. he will beat you using those "auto-loss" starting positions. he will refuse to lose when you got those "auto-win" ones. he's also a nice guy and an eager teacher. too bad he's not around so much these days. i am a poor replacement but i would be willing to play with you and test this out if you are interested
Modified by filip on 2015-04-15 13:00:57 HeadphonesGirl | 2015-04-15 13:19:15 |
Many board states I simply have no chance to win. I can look at the pool and surrender turn 1 because I know I've lost. The problem also manifests in the inverse; I can look at the pool and confidently autoplay cards because it is extremely improbable the opponent can stop it.
There are games where this doesn't happen; see Yomi for a good example.
If you're familiar with Yomi you should be familiar with David Sirlin and we shouldn't be having this argument. I don't think he'd agree with any of what you're saying given that he made his career on Street Fighter 2, a game which has lots of matchups which are 60/40 or worse. I'm not trying to be dismissive but my honest perception is that when you don't *know* how you could have won a matchup, you assume there was no way you could and this makes you mad, hence you go on angry rants on the forum where you make absolute claims about the game that there aren't any actual facts to support. All of your posts in this thread sound exactly like the "scrub" that Sirlin writes of, who constantly blames the game and other players for losing, never himself.
Modified by HeadphonesGirl on 2015-04-15 13:21:43 HeadphonesGirl | 2015-04-15 13:20:04 |
i have only one thing to say to you: play vs plynx. you will be enlightened. he will beat you using those "auto-loss" starting positions. he will refuse to lose when you got those "auto-win" ones. he's also a nice guy and an eager teacher. too bad he's not around so much these days. i am a poor replacement but i would be willing to play with you and test this out if you are interested
She already did. Then later she decided that Plynx is an arrogant asshole (for writing a guide) who only wins because he plays a lot of Time.
ShadowofMordor | 2015-04-15 13:22:02 |
I personally dislike Mono class players just beacuse of less fun .. nothing more than that, it's just so boring to face the same ppl 3-4 times in a row Always playing the same class. On a side note, at least u learn "how" that player plays and after some matches you should have some advantages. Anyway I simply blacklist mono class players, easy as that ;-) SoM
She already did. Then later she decided that Plynx is an arrogant asshole (for writing a guide) who only wins because he plays a lot of Time.
1) hey CP sorry for calling you "man" in one of my posts above! force of habit...
2) is what HPG said true? if yes then i see no point in continuing this conversation...
Modified by filip on 2015-04-15 14:40:41
I personally dislike Mono class players just beacuse of less fun .. nothing more than that, it's just so boring to face the same ppl 3-4 times in a row Always playing the same class.
i can totally accept that!
Modified by filip on 2015-04-15 14:42:47 CyberneticPony | 2015-04-15 15:19:11 |
... She already did. Then later she decided that Plynx is an arrogant asshole (for writing a guide) who only wins because he plays a lot of Time.
Not really, I just think GrimJoker is better than Plynx, and Plynx's number 1 spot is overrated (Jeronimo will soon likely overtake). I have also beaten Plynx; Plynx was more consistent because he was a better player, but he did lose when in an autolose position.
Study this, noting carefully how much information was already exposed by turn 2 (and especially turn 4). What could Plynx have done differently not to lose this? He played pretty optimally, but got shut down by a lack of reliable heals on a board where I had a lot of direct damage AND board control.
Modified by CyberneticPony on 2015-04-15 16:23:22 ShadowofMordor | 2015-04-15 15:24:08 |
I can't see the replay now ... but of course it may happen to have some quite impossible to win situations, fair enough there. SoM
Sinist | 2015-04-15 16:10:51 |
... Yes. For a healthy card game, you need matchups to have at the very least a reasonable degree to give players a chance to win.
Many board states I simply have no chance to win. I can look at the pool and surrender turn 1 because I know I've lost. The problem also manifests in the inverse; I can look at the pool and confidently autoplay cards because it is extremely improbable the opponent can stop it.
There are certain decks which almost guarantee you being screwed/victorious, true, especially inc ertain matchaps. But thet are really, really rare...
CyberneticPony | 2015-04-15 16:15:36 |
... There are certain decks which almost guarantee you being screwed/victorious, true, especially inc ertain matchaps. But thet are really, really rare...
Maybe what I'm trying to convey is that this occurs too frequently in some cases. I think Dominator/Necromancer/Chronomancer specifically have these occur far too often with things like Hasten/Time Stop/Weakness/Drain Souls.
CyberneticPony | 2015-04-15 16:45:33 |
Another autolose scenario; I played Water Sprite as the other openings were really risky; wall of lightning is played in response and I lose because of the impetus gained by this in combination with his draw.
I know he has Armageddon from turn 1 due to drawing both fire elemental and dragon, however, due to high cost spam, I cannot do anything about it AND hold the board. I even rushed out my best heal as fast as I could!
Sinist | 2015-04-15 16:47:15 |
Imho death 5 is much worse than death 7. Control requires almost perfect play to become imba Water 2? why not generator instead?
CyberneticPony | 2015-04-15 16:52:55 |
Imho death 5 is much worse than death 7. Control requires almost perfect play to become imba Water 2? why not generator instead?
Generator is prone to just getting fed to time 1; and the earth gained wouldn't have converted to anything useful.
CyberneticPony | 2015-04-15 16:55:36 |
Another autolose where I pretty much have too many spells and elementals as my high costs and while I hope I can avoid tornado, he does have it and he has also has E4. Inferno would not have saved the game from his fire elemental, I was already behind on tempo. Maybe you're getting the point by now? It happens too often.
CyberneticPony | 2015-04-15 17:00:50 |
And then I lost to Titan + Double Hasten by turn 5... Ugh. Yeah, now I remember why I left in the first place. Who knows, maybe Astral Heroes will be less busted? Modified by CyberneticPony on 2015-04-15 20:12:30 Sinist | 2015-04-15 17:03:11 |
... Generator is prone to just getting fed to time 1; and the earth gained wouldn't have converted to anything useful.
Well, mass spell for 2 special mana... Not bad exchange
CyberneticPony | 2015-04-15 17:05:52 |
... Well, mass spell for 2 special mana... Not bad exchange
I lose 5 earth mana beforehand, so I could maybe gen 4 mana in total by the time it dies, which would have gone into nothing, because I got my Master Healer anyway and there was nothing else useful in the Earth house for the situation I was in. I'd also leave a creature left unattended on the board. I'd have been worse off.
Modified by CyberneticPony on 2015-04-15 17:06:07 alex92 | 2015-04-15 17:06:03 |
Another autolose scenario; I played Water Sprite as the other openings were really risky; wall of lightning is played in response and I lose because of the impetus gained by this in combination with his draw.
I know he has Armageddon from turn 1 due to drawing both fire elemental and dragon, however, due to high cost spam, I cannot do anything about it AND hold the board. I even rushed out my best heal as fast as I could!
I have replay too. :)
CyberneticPony | 2015-04-15 17:11:54 |
... I have replay too. :)
What a great hand; you have Tornado in it so you know from turn 1 that you can safely play elementals later without any worry of removal. You have Time Stop so if I tried to cede board control in any way you could lock me down, and E4 for safety, and since I played off W2 first off, you know Acidic Rain was unlikely, so all you had to worry about was Stone Rain for me to mass clear you, but you played around this until E11 was played which was played just to counter your Arma.
Ez. Modified by CyberneticPony on 2015-04-15 17:17:24 HeadphonesGirl | 2015-04-15 17:26:33 |
... Not really, I just think GrimJoker is better than Plynx, and Plynx's number 1 spot is overrated (Jeronimo will soon likely overtake). I have also beaten Plynx; Plynx was more consistent because he was a better player, but he did lose when in an autolose position.
Study this, noting carefully how much information was already exposed by turn 2 (and especially turn 4). What could Plynx have done differently not to lose this? He played pretty optimally, but got shut down by a lack of reliable heals on a board where I had a lot of direct damage AND board control.
Grim is unquestionably one of the best of all time and one of the few
active players who can give Plynx a really hard time. However, their
tournament record, including when playing against each other, is clearly
in plynx's favor. Keep in mind that in tournaments everyone has to use
all the classes. Regarding the replay, Plynx's other healing
card was either master healer or water elemental, either of one of which
he sacrificed playing later in the game by going for water 5 and earth 3
early on. He was obviously trying to compensate for his heal screw by
playing aggressively to kill fast enough that he didn't need healing
anyway, which is a hallmark of his play style; I think Plynx would
usually rather go in than save healing even when he has stronger healing
cards. However in this case if he'd played more elven healers early and
saved mana for a bigger healer it is possible he could have weathered
the onslaught and come back with the high time mana he stockpiled. It is
possible that this game was "auto lose" as you call it, but I'm not
convinced from this replay.
CyberneticPony | 2015-04-15 17:27:48 |
... Grim is unquestionably one of the best of all time and one of the few active players who can give Plynx a really hard time. However, their tournament record, including when playing against each other, is clearly in plynx's favor. Keep in mind that in tournaments everyone has to use all the classes.
Regarding the replay, Plynx's other healing card was either master healer or water elemental, either of one of which he sacrificed playing later in the game by going for water 5 and earth 3 early on. He was obviously trying to compensate for his heal screw by playing aggressively to kill fast enough that he didn't need healing anyway, which is a hallmark of his play style; I think Plynx would usually rather go in than save healing even when he has stronger healing cards. However in this case if he'd played more elven healers early and saved mana for a bigger healer it is possible he could have weathered the onslaught and come back with the high time mana he stockpiled. It is possible that this game was "auto lose" as you call it, but I'm not convinced from this replay.
It was Master Healer, he could have played WE two turns before defeat and that'd have won him the game, but he didn't have it. If he had played more Elven Healers he'd have lost the board.
Modified by CyberneticPony on 2015-04-15 17:28:42 Sinist | 2015-04-15 17:39:47 |
Anyway, wasting special mana not on elephant was stupid. Blocking earth element instead of time dragon.. seriously? 2nd game: inferno instead of dragon, cloud instead of air 2 spam
HeadphonesGirl | 2015-04-15 17:40:19 |
... It was Master Healer, he could have played WE two turns before defeat and that'd have won him the game, but he didn't have it. If he had played more Elven Healers he'd have lost the board.
OK, so if he hadn't played the sprites, he could have played the master healer right after you used inferno, and also one or two more elven healers which would have lasted a decent amount of time thanks to the MH support. Meanwhile he still would have had high time in reserve to play the spellweavers or maybe 7/8 instead. Would this have worked? I don't know, but it strikes me as a definite possibility.
CyberneticPony | 2015-04-15 17:51:13 |
Anyway, wasting special mana not on elephant was stupid. Blocking earth element instead of time dragon.. seriously? 2nd game: inferno instead of dragon, cloud instead of air 2 spam
1. Elephant wouldn't have helped because I'd have a slower Master Healer and there'd be no damage pressure. You're suggesting more heals when all that'd have happened is that this Elephant would just have been cleared in a turn anyway and I'd have lost the board. I enjoy that you're calling me stupid, yet your analysis is about as simplistic as your class suggestion threads. (Ooh, snap). I blocked Earth Elemental because the game was already over by that point and I was just playing useless moves; I'd given up. 2. Those two would not have done anything in the grand scheme of things. Remember if I'm playing board spells I'm not playing creatures so I'm taking damage beforehand to support this.
@Headphones girl: Possibly; that's actually a good point, but he played the sprites beforehand, so I think that he pretty much lost on turn 2; if he had not shown the sprites I'd have not gained the 1% information I needed to exploit the position he was in. But the point is, he played a sprite, and he lost simply due to that turn.
Also, about "tournament record", let's examine the MUs Plynx and Grim played in Tourney of Champions.
Cultist (Grim) vs Mechanician (Plynx) -> Win Rate Table (Prospectro 25+) says 55% in favour of Grim. Plynx however drew Phoenix so this offset him incredibly (why else is Phoenix less likely to be drawn other than the fact it ruins games with the right conditions).
Vampire (Grim) vs Illusionist (Plynx) -> Win Rate Table (Prospectro 25+) says 54% in favour of Grim. Grim wins.
Goblin (Grim) vs Sorceror (Plynx) -> Win Rate Table (Prospectro 25+) says 56% in favour of Plynx. Plynx wins.
Death (Grim) vs Golem (Plynx) -> Win Rate Table (Prospectro 25+) says roughly balanced (slight edge to Plynx). Plynx wins.
I'm not surprised Plynx won with that pick luck and Phoenix draw. At such high level it really all depends on the little edges. HeadphonesGirl | 2015-04-15 18:20:18 |
@Headphones girl: Possibly; that's actually a good point, but he played the sprites beforehand, so I think that he pretty much lost on turn 2; if he had not shown the sprites I'd have not gained the 1% information I needed to exploit the position he was in. But the point is, he played a sprite, and he lost simply due to that turn.
Also, about "tournament record", let's examine the MUs Plynx and Grim played in Tourney of Champions.
Cultist (Grim) vs Mechanician (Plynx) -> Win Rate Table (Prospectro 25+) says 55% in favour of Grim. Plynx however drew Phoenix so this offset him incredibly (why else is Phoenix less likely to be drawn other than the fact it ruins games with the right conditions).
Vampire (Grim) vs Illusionist (Plynx) -> Win Rate Table (Prospectro 25+) says 54% in favour of Grim. Grim wins.
Goblin (Grim) vs Sorceror (Plynx) -> Win Rate Table (Prospectro 25+) says 56% in favour of Plynx. Plynx wins.
Death (Grim) vs Golem (Plynx) -> Win Rate Table (Prospectro 25+) says roughly balanced (slight edge to Plynx). Plynx wins.
I'm not surprised Plynx won with that pick luck and Phoenix draw. At such high level it really all depends on the little edges.
I don't see it as a problem if there are some draws where you can lose on the first one or two moves. I think I brought this up in a previous discussion with you, but I think one of the main differences in our thinking is that what is generally considered to be a "game" of spectromancer is what I think of as merely a "hand" of spectromancer. Poker was an influence on the design concept of Spectromancer, and it was always intended that, no matter how good you are, you are going to lose some hands, just like the very best poker players lose some hands, but their overall performance keeps them on the top. Regarding tournament performance, it is surely the case that matchups make a difference especially at that high a level of play. A slight edge can make a world of difference between players that close. However keep in mind that Plynx also has multiple other tournament first placings -- in fact if I recall correctly he has taken first in every tournament he has entered -- which Grim hasn't. Grim always gets very high in the tournaments but he has often been edged out of first by another top player. I don't mean this as a negative evaluation of his skills at all, he's an amazing player, much better than me, however he does not have the very clear tournament record Plynx does that puts him on top.
CyberneticPony | 2015-04-15 18:28:33 |
... I don't see it as a problem if there are some draws where you can lose on the first one or two moves.
I think I brought this up in a previous discussion with you, but I think one of the main differences in our thinking is that what is generally considered to be a "game" of spectromancer is what I think of as merely a "hand" of spectromancer. Poker was an influence on the design concept of Spectromancer, and it was always intended that, no matter how good you are, you are going to lose some hands, just like the very best poker players lose some hands, but their overall performance keeps them on the top.
Regarding tournament performance, it is surely the case that matchups make a difference especially at that high a level of play. A slight edge can make a world of difference between players that close. However keep in mind that Plynx also has multiple other tournament first placings -- in fact if I recall correctly he has taken first in every tournament he has entered -- which Grim hasn't. Grim always gets very high in the tournaments but he has often been edged out of first by another top player. I don't mean this as a negative evaluation of his skills at all, he's an amazing player, much better than me, however he does not have the very clear tournament record Plynx does that puts him on top.
I am basically claiming Plynx is lucky; as far as I know Plynx has barely entered many tournaments (I counted 2 last time I checked); my skepticism would be quickly dispelled if he entered more. Grim is a more consistent player, and I think he's better.
Modified by CyberneticPony on 2015-04-15 18:29:31 Sinist | 2015-04-15 18:31:44 |
... 1. Elephant wouldn't have helped because I'd have a slower Master Healer and there'd be no damage pressure. You're suggesting more heals when all that'd have happened is that this Elephant would just have been cleared in a turn anyway and I'd have lost the board. I enjoy that you're calling me stupid, yet your analysis is about as simplistic as your class suggestion threads. (Ooh, snap).
I blocked Earth Elemental because the game was already over by that point and I was just playing useless moves; I'd given up.
2. Those two would not have done anything in the grand scheme of things. Remember if I'm playing board spells I'm not playing creatures so I'm taking damage beforehand to support this.
@Headphones girl: Possibly; that's actually a good point, but he played the sprites beforehand, so I think that he pretty much lost on turn 2; if he had not shown the sprites I'd have not gained the 1% information I needed to exploit the position he was in. But the point is, he played a sprite, and he lost simply due to that turn.
Also, about "tournament record", let's examine the MUs Plynx and Grim played in Tourney of Champions.
Cultist (Grim) vs Mechanician (Plynx) -> Win Rate Table (Prospectro 25+) says 55% in favour of Grim. Plynx however drew Phoenix so this offset him incredibly (why else is Phoenix less likely to be drawn other than the fact it ruins games with the right conditions).
Vampire (Grim) vs Illusionist (Plynx) -> Win Rate Table (Prospectro 25+) says 54% in favour of Grim. Grim wins.
Goblin (Grim) vs Sorceror (Plynx) -> Win Rate Table (Prospectro 25+) says 56% in favour of Plynx. Plynx wins.
Death (Grim) vs Golem (Plynx) -> Win Rate Table (Prospectro 25+) says roughly balanced (slight edge to Plynx). Plynx wins.
I'm not surprised Plynx won with that pick luck and Phoenix draw. At such high level it really all depends on the little edges.
No, elephant would provide both better healing and board control than either beast 4 or master healer. Who was not that useful anyway. Elephant also negates water 2 downsides betetr Not you but your actions. Oh, and do you have any class suggestions worth mentioning to be able to judge? No, you still had chances to survive with clever water 4 and earth 2 use... but at the end it was your fault as much as draw Inferno would at least clear board. Unlike dragon who did nothing. And you would have more mana and less threats to worry about Plynx imho is the best Spectro player ever. Years go he was on the top, too. And as soon as he came back he did it to 40+ level in several days. It is incorrect to assume that he defeats his rivals just because of lucky draws. I mean, look at his guide
Modified by Sinist on 2015-04-15 18:32:31 CyberneticPony | 2015-04-15 18:42:18 |
... No, elephant would provide both better healing and board control than either beast 4 or master healer. Who was not that useful anyway. Elephant also negates water 2 downsides betetr Not you but your actions. Oh, and do you have any class suggestions worth mentioning to be able to judge? No, you still had chances to survive with clever water 4 and earth 2 use... but at the end it was your fault as much as draw
Inferno would at least clear board. Unlike dragon who did nothing. And you would have more mana and less threats to worry about
Plynx imho is the best Spectro player ever. Years go he was on the top, too. And as soon as he came back he did it to 40+ level in several days. It is incorrect to assume that he defeats his rivals just because of lucky draws. I mean, look at his guide
If I didn't play Dragon, and played elephant instead, he'd have just tornadoed the elephant to the exact same effect. Inferno would NOT have cleared the board, FE would go unchallenged because I'd have burnt all my mana clearing weaklings. He'd have followed with strong plays. Plynx's guide is for beginners; so far I've not seen anything which you don't pick up from playing a few hundred games.
Modified by CyberneticPony on 2015-04-15 18:43:28 srbhkshk | 2015-04-15 18:46:46 |
I just don't understand why CPony is not level 67 or something yet.
Sinist | 2015-04-15 18:52:18 |
Elephant would come earlier and dish some damage before being wiped out. Tornadoed elephant is good for druid who got both additional hp and mana advantage Inferno would definitely give you better control than dragon play so you at least would have chances. Control 1 spam makes dragon unfeasible anyway
Yeah, he seems to be so sure that Plynx "is not that good player"; he must have beaten him multiple times...
CyberneticPony | 2015-04-15 18:58:11 |
I just don't understand why CPony is not level 67 or something yet. I am not that good. This has no relevance to my complaint.
HeadphonesGirl | 2015-04-15 18:58:17 |
... I am basically claiming Plynx is lucky; as far as I know Plynx has barely entered many tournaments (I counted 2 last time I checked); my skepticism would be quickly dispelled if he entered more. Grim is a more consistent player, and I think he's better.
Three in a row. The first one was January which is when he started playing again. He hadn't played at all for several years at that point, and he entered the tournament without even having familiarized himself with all the new classes that had been introduced since he played before, and he still won. Again, not to dismiss Grim's skills in any way, but he has yet to take first in a tournament despite several 2nd places. You can check the records right on the main site.
Modified by HeadphonesGirl on 2015-04-15 18:59:17 CyberneticPony | 2015-04-15 19:05:51 |
... Three in a row. The first one was January which is when he started playing again. He hadn't played at all for several years at that point, and he entered the tournament without even having familiarized himself with all the new classes that had been introduced since he played before, and he still won.
Not knowing classes going into a tournament screams Jon Finkel to me, in other words, not actually that good, just someone who is insightful enough to exploit metagames based on knowing other players. I'm sure if people realised this was occurring they'd have been able to prepare against it.
Sinist | 2015-04-15 19:07:13 |
And who has positive statistics vs Plynx?
CyberneticPony | 2015-04-15 19:08:57 |
Elephant would come earlier and dish some damage before being wiped out. Tornadoed elephant is good for druid who got both additional hp and mana advantage Inferno would definitely give you better control than dragon play so you at least would have chances. Control 1 spam makes dragon unfeasible anyway
Yeah, he seems to be so sure that Plynx "is not that good player"; he must have beaten him multiple times... I have. I'm not arguing Plynx is better, because he's far more consistent, but the complaint isn't related to this; I shouldn't be able to take games from Plynx if he's so good. Yet I win every now and then solely because of card pool, and this occurs "too frequently". I'm just ignoring your comments now Sinist, you're obviously fanboying, and don't want to comment on the actual conversation, which is whether or not the frequency the card pool dictates the game over skill is too high or not.
srbhkshk | 2015-04-15 19:09:24 |
... I am not that good. This has no relevance to my complaint.
It actually has. CyberneticPony | 2015-04-15 19:10:54 |
... It actually has.
No, it does not, my skill level is probably about level 14 at the moment. The topic is about whether or not lucky draws are too prevalent or not, and whether this occurs specifically in some classes more often than others, which explains the high number of mono players with higher skill levels. It has nothing to do with my personal skill. Modified by CyberneticPony on 2015-04-15 19:12:00 srbhkshk | 2015-04-15 19:12:49 |
... No, it does not, my skill level is probably about level 14 at the moment. The topic is about whether or not lucky draws are too prevalent or not. It has nothing to do with my personal skill.
Nah, the way you discard other opinions and put yours on a higher pedestal, it totally seems like you'd be level 70 if you actually tried. CyberneticPony | 2015-04-15 19:14:03 |
... Nah, the way you discard other opinions and put yours on a higher pedestal, it totally seems like you'd be level 70 if you actually tried.
No, I'm refuting them, not discarding them. This is a discussion where rational humans present each other with information. You're just using ad hominems, ie, not contributing to anything. Do something else, don't waste other people's time.
srbhkshk | 2015-04-15 19:15:39 |
... No, I'm refuting them, not discarding them. This is a discussion where rational humans present each other with information. You're just using ad hominems, ie, not contributing to anything. Do something else, don't waste other people's time.
Refuting them? Yet to see that. HeadphonesGirl | 2015-04-15 19:15:54 |
... Not knowing classes going into a tournament screams Jon Finkel to me, in other words, not actually that good, just someone who is insightful enough to exploit metagames based on knowing other players. I'm sure if people realised this was occurring they'd have been able to prepare against it.
It's amazing how you have an excuse no matter what comes up. I don't even know where to start explaining why this makes no sense. How could he have exploited a metagame or known other players if he had just come back after not even playing for years. He wouldn't have known these things! However if a person is insightful enough to "exploit" these things and win a tournament against people who don't, how does that mean they are not good? Insight into what are the best moves in the game (meta or otherwise), and the ability to read a person's opponents, are key skills of top players in any competitive game. Again, you sound exactly like the "scrub" in Sirlin's articles on competitive games, almost word for word this time. "This person isn't actually good at the game, they just know how to do things in the game that beat everything else." That's what being good at the game *is.*
CyberneticPony | 2015-04-15 19:21:42 |
... It's amazing how you have an excuse no matter what comes up. I don't even know where to start explaining why this makes no sense.
How could he have exploited a metagame or known other players if he had just come back after not even playing for years. He wouldn't have known these things!
However if a person is insightful enough to "exploit" these things and win a tournament against people who don't, how does that mean they are not good? Insight into what are the best moves in the game (meta or otherwise), and the ability to read a person's opponents, are key skills of top players in any competitive game.
Again, you sound exactly like the "scrub" in Sirlin's articles on competitive games, almost word for word this time. "This person isn't actually good at the game, they just know how to do things in the game that beat everything else." That's what being good at the game *is.*
Except, if you read Sirlin's clarifications, cheating (or playing outside the rules of the game) is not one of those things that makes one good. Jon Finkel is "good" at Magic, in the same way as Plynx is "good" at Spectromancer. I am not saying he's bad or even average, he's very good. However, I think that taking a data set of 3 is flawed, which have very good reasons to have been lucky results, combined with some of the specific setups that seem almost like the classes he picked were actually done by checking the availible classes list which is broadcast PUBLICALLY, (yes, I literally believe what he is doing to achieve these results is to analyse the list of your available classes and pick the best selection for having the greatest statistical odds of beating you.) Plynx still has to be good, but he doesn't have to be as good as if he made a completely uninformed class selection like everyone else does. At least Jon Finkel never claimed he did zero learning before entering a tournament. EDIT: Can we return to the topic and stop talking about Plynx, I really don't like that guy (with good reason, if I really must, I'll disclose it). Modified by CyberneticPony on 2015-04-15 19:29:00 HeadphonesGirl | 2015-04-15 19:34:50 |
I really don't like that guy Yeah, I can tell. You are so diametrically opposed to the idea that he's the best player that you are insisting he's somehow not really "that" good, or even "cheating" (you actually used that word!) for (you assume) utilizing information that everyone else has access to and making smart decisions according to it. It's pretty obvious that this is what's actually motivating your words, and not an honest or rational analysis of his play. By the way, what you're suggesting would still be impossible for his first tournament victory if he's not familiar with the classes. Seeing which ones are available is only useful if you already know which ones do well against each other, which he couldn't possibly have known at that point. Modified by HeadphonesGirl on 2015-04-15 19:36:15 CyberneticPony | 2015-04-15 19:36:28 |
... Yeah, I can tell. You are so diametrically opposed to the idea that he's the best player that you are insisting he's somehow not really good, or even "cheating" (you actually used that word!) for (you assume) utilizing information that everyone else has access to and making smart decisions according to it.
It's pretty obvious that this is what's actually motivating your words, and not an honest or rational analysis of his play.
You're perfectly right actually, and I apologise, because my rage has actually blinded me to the fact this is perfectly doable by anyone else and therefore could actually be considered as perfectly valid. Alright, I concede here. However, this was straying from the main debate, which I still am convinced in my position. Note: I still think GrimJoker is better than Plynx though. Modified by CyberneticPony on 2015-04-15 19:43:00 Sinist | 2015-04-15 19:44:38 |
... I have. I'm not arguing Plynx is better, because he's far more consistent, but the complaint isn't related to this; I shouldn't be able to take games from Plynx if he's so good. Yet I win every now and then solely because of card pool, and this occurs "too frequently".
I'm just ignoring your comments now Sinist, you're obviously fanboying, and don't want to comment on the actual conversation, which is whether or not the frequency the card pool dictates the game over skill is too high or not.
Spectro is not chess; any players have some chance vs Plynx. The other thing is that for most of them it is close to zero, exactly because he is that good. It is you right to do so. I already expressed my doubts about hypothetical frequency of "hopeless decks". Looks like skill has more to do with them being useless And what makes you think Grim is better, huh?
Modified by Sinist on 2015-04-15 19:45:03 CyberneticPony | 2015-04-15 19:46:30 |
... Spectro is not chess; any players have some chance vs Plynx. The other thing is that for most of them it is close to zero, exactly because he is that good. It is you right to do so. I already expressed my doubts about hypothetical frequency of "hopeless decks". Looks like skill has more to do with them being useless
And what makes you think Grim is better, huh?
It's not as close to zero as it should be. There are too many chances for exceptionally bad draws that could be theoretically checked against. Also, not taking the bait on that last line.
Modified by CyberneticPony on 2015-04-15 19:46:53 Sinist | 2015-04-15 19:47:24 |
Now, it seems only dozen of tournaments with Plynx participating would be enough to convince Pony whos is best Not "too many", according to my experience
HeadphonesGirl | 2015-04-15 19:49:20 |
Fair enough. I'm surprised he did whatever he did to offend you that much because he's never been anything but kind in my experience, but you feel how you feel.
CyberneticPony | 2015-04-15 19:53:07 |
Now, it seems only dozen of tournaments with Plynx participating would be enough to convince Pony whos is best Not "too many", according to my experience No, just one more would be enough. Finkel has done it 3 times in a row, and the rest of his stats are all over the place, if Plynx can get 1st place for a 4th time, then I'll back down. Can we please stop talking about Plynx!
Modified by CyberneticPony on 2015-04-15 19:53:26 CyberneticPony | 2015-04-15 19:54:14 |
Fair enough. I'm surprised he did whatever he did to offend you that much because he's never been anything but kind in my experience, but you feel how you feel. I will tell you that he offended me on such a personal level that I hope he never shows his face here again.
Sinist | 2015-04-15 20:34:13 |
Wait what, offending? where? Anyway, if you consider him to be "not that good" only because of personal grudge... Modified by Sinist on 2015-04-15 20:41:18 CyberneticPony | 2015-04-15 21:17:55 |
Wait what, offending? where? Anyway, if you consider him to be "not that good" only because of personal grudge... Yeah, I already retracted this. In simpler words in case my sentences were a bit confusing; I don't like him, and I said bad things about him because I don't like him, but Plynx is a good player.
If you really must know, he offended me when he played a few games with me and told me that "I was incapable of learning" and "mentally defective".
Plynx's guide is for beginners; so far I've not seen anything which you don't pick up from playing a few hundred games.
say what?? actually, it got even me thinking. dunno what you're talking about...
besides, it's called the Plynx's Beginner's Guide! for crying out loud
Modified by filip on 2015-04-15 22:32:33
Not knowing classes going into a tournament screams Jon Finkel to me
jon. freaking. finkel. why are we still debating about this?
Modified by filip on 2015-04-15 21:20:21
You're perfectly right actually, and I apologise, because my rage has actually blinded me to the fact this is perfectly doable by anyone else and therefore could actually be considered as perfectly valid. Alright, I concede here.
hats off to you for admitting it that's not an easy thing to do
Modified by filip on 2015-04-15 21:23:39
Finkel has done it 3 times in a row, and the rest of his stats are all over the place
you need to do your homework miss. jon finkel is at the top of all-time money leaders of MtG (second only to the german juggernaut) having made $355,984 by slinging little cards on a table. you literally cannot achieve anything even close to that without showcasing immense prowess and consistency. he has made the top8 of a pro tour an astonishing 14 times (currently the all-time record - talk about consistency) winning 3 of them and 3 grand prix as well. he was a national champion of USA and led that team to win the world championship in 2000 * * and i was actually there to watch him do it as captain of my own country's national team hehe sorry i just couldn't resist bragging about it :P
Modified by filip on 2015-04-15 22:34:34 Tendou | 2015-04-15 21:43:12 |
...
you need to do your homework miss. jon finkel is at the top of all-time money leaders of MtG (second only to the german juggernaut) having made $355,984 by slinging little cards on a table. you literally cannot achieve anything even close to that without showcasing immense consistency. he has made the top8 of a pro tour an astonishing 14 times (currently the all-time record - talk about consistency) winning 3 of them and 3 grand prix as well. he was a national champion of USA and led that team to win the world championship in 2000 * * and i was actually there to watch him do it as captain of my own country's national team hehe sorry i just couldn't resist bragging about it :P
Good job reaching that level filip, I wonder how much time it takes to keep up with the growing number of cards in a tcg to build new decks and be able to react to any upcoming high meta deck.
Good job reaching that level filip, I wonder how much time it takes to keep up with the growing number of cards in a tcg to build new decks and be able to react to any upcoming high meta deck.
lots and lots of time! and the variance in tournament results is a killer! but if you keep playing and you're good at it, then eventually you will get those good results as long as you don't let the bad ones bring you down
Modified by filip on 2015-04-15 22:00:10
anyway, on topic: it seems to me that there is no further point in ganging up on CP and trying to force our opinion on her. on my part, it was never my intention to make her feel bad, just to communicate the truth about this matter in my perspective. hopefully at least my current level and the sheer volume of games i have played, as well as the respective qualities of the other players that joined in, will have planted the seed of doubt in her but hey, if all this could not do the trick, then i'm afraid nothing will. in any case, every person is entitled to their own point of view obviously
Modified by filip on 2015-04-15 22:43:29 Tendou | 2015-04-15 22:04:39 |
BTW, i really think this thread turned out to be much more useful then it looks on the surface. I am convinced after reading the posts above that i am not alone in realising the shock of the past few months. On one hand it is a hopeful conclusion to see that it is possible to jump 21 levels in 2 days from high to the highest of rankings. Though it also comes with a sharp degree of frustration for all of us whom were trying our best to be crowned as the champion of this game and yet our efforts failed( miserably compared to the input of time and effort). I think CP has just expressed her feelings which is all of ours and thus in my opinion did a great deal to the common good of the community and let me say thanks for that matter. On the other hand i really fear the day when this game sinks into eternal oblivion and stays in the shadows of cash grabs which will not stand the test of time and it is partly the responsibility of the devs to keep the game updated and are all really looking forward to that because this masterpiece represents the heights of gaming design and sense of community for me so thanks for bringing that issue up too.
CyberneticPony | 2015-04-15 22:16:44 |
BTW, i really think this thread turned out to be much more useful then it looks on the surface. I am convinced after reading the posts above that i am not alone in realising the shock of the past few months. On one hand it is a hopeful conclusion to see that it is possible to jump 21 levels in 2 days from high to the highest of rankings. Though it also comes with a sharp degree of frustration for all of us whom were trying our best to be crowned as the champion of this game and yet our efforts failed( miserably compared to the input of time and effort). I think CP has just expressed her feelings which is all of ours and thus in my opinion did a great deal to the common good of the community and let me say thanks for that matter. On the other hand i really fear the day when this game sinks into eternal oblivion and stays in the shadows of cash grabs which will not stand the test of time and it is partly the responsibility of the devs to keep the game updated and are all really looking forward to that because this masterpiece represents the heights of gaming design and sense of community for me so thanks for bringing that issue up too. Thanks Tendou and filip for your interesting comments. I admit I have learnt about the differing opinions on the community about this, especially with regards to an anomalous player able to play insanely well (like a prodigy) and people's assessment of their perception of luck/skill roles in the game. Filip, I disagree with your assessment of Jon Finkel's achievement because Magic requires a huge amount of investment beforehand before you can actually compete, which a lot of players cannot make, and he must have spent a lot of money on Magic, even if he did make a profit in the end with his winnings. I also think Magic is actually a lot simpler than Spectro, and while I did take it seriously at one point, got fed up when it became clear that competing would be too expensive for me to sustain.
Sinist | 2015-04-15 22:19:17 |
BTW, i really think this thread turned out to be much more useful then it looks on the surface. I am convinced after reading the posts above that i am not alone in realising the shock of the past few months. On one hand it is a hopeful conclusion to see that it is possible to jump 21 levels in 2 days from high to the highest of rankings. Though it also comes with a sharp degree of frustration for all of us whom were trying our best to be crowned as the champion of this game and yet our efforts failed( miserably compared to the input of time and effort). I think CP has just expressed her feelings which is all of ours and thus in my opinion did a great deal to the common good of the community and let me say thanks for that matter. On the other hand i really fear the day when this game sinks into eternal oblivion and stays in the shadows of cash grabs which will not stand the test of time and it is partly the responsibility of the devs to keep the game updated and are all really looking forward to that because this masterpiece represents the heights of gaming design and sense of community for me so thanks for bringing that issue up too. Well, what can others do if he is just that good. Which is obvious, judging by his posts and achievements. Thats like people envying to Koreans in Starcraft.Sure, they pwn everyone. However not everyone is aware of how many hours and efforts they spend on training... I personally dont share CP feelings It s a pity Sealeta and Kroma are active no longer though. Their titanic battles vs Plynx would be amusing to watch
Modified by Sinist on 2015-04-15 22:20:50 CyberneticPony | 2015-04-15 22:22:57 |
... Well, what can others do if he is just that good. Which is obvious, judging by his posts and achievements. Thats like people envying to Koreans in Starcraft.Sure, they pwn everyone. However not everyone is aware of how many hours and efforts they spend on training... I personally dont share CP feelings It s a pity Sealeta and Kroma are active no longer though. Their titanic battles vs Plynx would be amusing to watch
Plynx claimed to never put in those hours. That's the difference.
Sinist | 2015-04-15 23:28:33 |
Then he is simply genius, right?
CyberneticPony | 2015-04-15 23:42:43 |
Then he is simply genius, right? A genius or lucky, and probability dictates the latter. I think coming first consistently in 3 tournaments with a 75% win rate in the ToC still seems mathematically on the lucky side. As I said, if he wins a 4th, then I'll hands down accept he's a genius.
Jeronimo | 2015-04-16 01:20:51 |
Plynx's personality made him won with such high winrate: in one word he was meticulous. He had fast skills to discover your key cards (those around your main strategy would spin). Tough he admitted to hate maths, he was good at it (like any top player should be).
But not everything is "shiny and marvelous" about him. Check his profile winrates with new classes after his return: you see which ones he gave more attention... I presenced a serie of duels between GrimJ0ker and Plynx... tough it was even in the final result, Plynx won most of his games picking Time.
Modified by Jeronimo on 2015-04-16 01:22:06 CyberneticPony | 2015-04-16 01:23:47 |
Plynx's personality made him won with such high winrate: in one word he was meticulous.He had fast skills to discover your key cards (those around your main strategy would spin). Tough he admitted to hate maths, he was good at it (like any top player should be).
But not everything is "shiny and marvelous" about him. Check his profile winrates with new classes after his return: you see which ones he gave more attention... I presenced a serie of duels between GrimJ0ker and Plynx... tough it was even in the final result, Plynx won most of his games picking Time. Thank you! At least somebody sides with me. (At least, if I understood you right.)
Modified by CyberneticPony on 2015-04-16 01:26:17 Jeronimo | 2015-04-16 01:30:12 |
Second issue here-> Class balance: I think as many, the balance is not well made. There is a significant difference between classes which are "basic house dependant" (hermit, sorcery), and classes that "stand strong alone" (time, dominator). You see the REAL difference in the long run between 2 players choices (stand strong alone>>>basic house dependant).
@Cybernetic: I just wrote my thoughts about Plynx without the hype and mysterious genius aura that surrounds him. The word genius is a tricky one (requires testing exams). For me, he was just meticulous. Modified by Jeronimo on 2015-04-16 01:36:29 CyberneticPony | 2015-04-16 01:36:11 |
Second topic here-> Class balance: I think as many, the balance is not well made.There is a significant difference between classes which are "basic house dependant" (hermit, sorcery), and classes that "stand strong alone" (time, dominator). That's the classification of classes that makes the difference in the long run (if you play certain type of class more than other).
@Cybernetic: I just wrote my thoughts about Plynx without the hype and mysterious genius aura that surrounds him. The word genius is a tricky one (requires testing exams). For me, he was just meticulous. Ah, thanks for the clarification. Also, I presume when you say the balance is not well made, you still think the game is "balanced" number wise, just terrible in actual gameplay? (EDIT: Oh wow, this got to 100 posts in about 2 days, wow this forum bursts with activity sometimes!)
Modified by CyberneticPony on 2015-04-16 01:38:38 Jeronimo | 2015-04-16 02:01:42 |
... Ah, thanks for the clarification.
Also, I presume when you say the balance is not well made, you still think the game is "balanced" number wise, just terrible in actual gameplay?
(EDIT: Oh wow, this got to 100 posts in about 2 days, wow this forum bursts with activity sometimes!)
Bursts because is not only about mono-players... Includes commenting top players performances, game balance for 1000th time again, and all sort of advices to fight them.
IMO game's balance has defects already in the general numeric relationships (card effects/creatures stats).
Just 1 example: How do you kill creatures with +50 HP, when your most powerful mass destruction is Stone Rain with 25 dmg? Combining Stone Rain + Acidic Rain / Armageddon and all your mana is gone in a chain of global destructions only to take 1-2 big monsters down (and in the while you get damaged)... then you are very limited in options to continue the struggle.
I once suggested 21 months & 19 days ago, that NO creature should have more than 50 HP (E9->50%). Set your game's soul with this max HP limit, and then you have it easier to organize values of creatures. -----------------------------
We could move into specific Class issues, but my main thought is that "basic house dependant" are weaker than "stand strong alone" for obvious reasons-> The player who abuses "stand strong alone" classes will win most of times, even with bad set of basic cards... Can be solved with buffing and nerfing, as everything in life, but I doubt there will be another update AND if that happened... that things needed to be changed will be touched. Modified by Jeronimo on 2015-04-16 02:06:59 CyberneticPony | 2015-04-16 02:06:34 |
We could move into specific Class issues, but my main thought is that "basic house dependant" are weaker than "stand strong alone" for obvious reasons-> The player who abuses "stand strong alone" classes will win most of times, even with bad set of basic cards... Can be solved with buffing and nerfing, as everything in life, but I doubt there will be another update AND that things needed to be changed will be touched.
So why is it that the stats do not seem to show this trend being significant? Did they buff certain cards in the "basic house dependant" classes considerably to achieve this illusion?
Jeronimo | 2015-04-16 02:49:07 |
Classes Winrates Screen is a solid evidence for those who choose to believe in percentages. When this "evidence" is shown to me, I'm more esceptic asking: Are disconnects included? Did players that lost, have a chance to win but they misscalculated? Were victories accompanied by key cards such as Dragon or Tornado?
So I believe in the experience I have accumulated through these years of Spectrogaming. Let's say I trust in my mental record book more than in duels which I have not presenced or random people. Let only players of "trusted good skill" work together in a Classes Winrates Challenge, till 100 notation mark of every class confrontation (100 trainings%). I could contribute no problems, just organize in new thread, write a list of players, an usual day / timezone to meet and help for Statistics closer to the Truth.
Maybe guys from ProSpectro find the challenge worth of trying. Or not worthy... hehehe Modified by Jeronimo on 2015-04-16 03:16:12 HeadphonesGirl | 2015-04-16 03:28:24 |
I had a response to jeronimo but the forum seems to be eating my posts in this thread now. Summary: I think everyone agrees that the statistics should not be the only basis for making balance updates, including, if I recall correctly, Estarh and Cooler. The stats are useful however because they are unbiased, unlike the opinions of individual players no matter how skilled. Also the experiment you suggest would be very interesting, but I do not agree it would necessarily create stats that are closer to the "truth." Remember that you'd be using a much smaller sample size and therefore individual player nuances and lucky events would skew the statistics much more. Modified by HeadphonesGirl on 2015-04-16 03:30:14 Jeronimo | 2015-04-16 04:01:13 |
Also the experiment you suggest would be very interesting, but I do not agree it would necessarily create stats that are closer to the "truth." Remember that you'd be using a much smaller sample size and therefore individual player nuances and lucky events would skew the statistics much more. Truth includes lucky games, since is true these happen from time to time--- There was a post about Skill/Luck percentages (biased of course) in which Filip, Grim, me and others set their beliefs respect Spectromancer compared to Hearthstone-> http://spectromancer.com/forum.cgi#pageid=4662&;msg=56067
So we would have 25% luck not only in 100 sample size, but also in 3000 sample size. I think the amount of games "decided by luck" is proportional, therefore I wouldn't target sample size which at least will be of "trusted good players". As a joke, we could say whenever 1 makes a mistake in 1 match, he has done the mistake of 30 random players (if hypothetical sample representation were 3000). Modified by Jeronimo on 2015-04-16 04:14:15 srbhkshk | 2015-04-16 05:10:03 |
Smaller sample sizes make luck a much more important factor, with a 25% luck chance as you say, you may get ~40 lucky games out of 100 just as an example, it all evens out over a larger sample size.
Modified by srbhkshk on 2015-04-16 05:10:25 Jeronimo | 2015-04-16 05:55:48 |
Smaller sample sizes make luck a much more important factor, with a 25% luck chance as you say, you may get ~40 lucky games out of 100 just as an example, it all evens out over a larger sample size. 100 games of each confrontation is still a lot to do... to give an example is this: 1600 plays per class-> 100 "cleric vs cleric", 100 "cleric vs necro", 100 "cleric vs mecha", etc.
Skill is more important than luck, and luck games will happen... but the most important advantage of playing this with only "trusted players" is that they know house bans, etc. better than maybe 90% of the players represented in statistics percentages... How many did know about the theory behind card draws?
With NO knowledge of Spectromancer's draw rules or ban combos... How can you expect these tables to reflect the Reality of the Game? Their cards guessing could be seriously limitated playing blindly most of their duels, or even worse... not caring to win, just to spend time. Casual gaming is not serious meticulous gaming (Plynx style).
When you see Class Winrates... Think again about all the aspects involved in random players performance. That way you will turn as esceptic as me. Modified by Jeronimo on 2015-04-16 11:45:24 Sinist | 2015-04-16 12:32:29 |
...
Just 1 example: How do you kill creatures with +50 HP, when your most powerful mass destruction is Stone Rain with 25 dmg? Combining Stone Rain + Acidic Rain / Armageddon and all your mana is gone in a chain of global destructions only to take 1-2 big monsters down (and in the while you get damaged)... then you are very limited in options to continue the struggle.
I once suggested 21 months & 19 days ago, that NO creature should have more than 50 HP (E9->50%). Set your game's soul with this max HP limit, and then you have it easier to organize values of creatures.
Huh? Creatures are backbone of the game, not spells which are supposed to support them. This is how Spectro was designed since the beginning
CyberneticPony | 2015-04-16 13:02:13 |
... Huh? Creatures are backbone of the game, not spells which are supposed to support them. This is how Spectro was designed since the beginning
All he was saying that a creature with more than 50 HP would be extremely difficult to stop with creatures and/or spells because the strongest clearance, outside of Tornado or Disintegrate, only does a flat 25 to ALL creatures.
Modified by CyberneticPony on 2015-04-16 13:05:07 Sinist | 2015-04-16 13:54:57 |
Because you are not supposed to fight them only with spells. Combined arms take down even Greater Barguls P.S. Control 5 anyone? Modified by Sinist on 2015-04-16 13:55:38 CyberneticPony | 2015-04-16 13:57:11 |
Because you are not supposed to fight them only with spells. Combined arms take down even Greater Barguls P.S. Control 5 anyone? But combined arms are often extremely mana inefficient.
EDIT: Control 5 is class-specific. If you're not control, it'd suck hard. Modified by CyberneticPony on 2015-04-16 14:02:29 srbhkshk | 2015-04-16 14:11:21 |
... 100 games of each confrontation is still a lot to do... to give an example is this:1600 plays per class-> 100 "cleric vs cleric", 100 "cleric vs necro", 100 "cleric vs mecha", etc.
Skill is more important than luck, and luck games will happen... but the most important advantage of playing this with only "trusted players" is that they know house bans, etc. better than maybe 90% of the players represented in statistics percentages... How many did know about the theory behind card draws?
With NO knowledge of Spectromancer's draw rules or ban combos... How can you expect these tables to reflect the Reality of the Game? Their cards guessing could be seriously limitated playing blindly most of their duels, or even worse... not caring to win, just to spend time. Casual gaming is not serious meticulous gaming (Plynx style).
I'm pretty sure the higher level tables, ie. 20(25?) + pretty much give what you are trying to accomplish. Sinist | 2015-04-16 14:11:59 |
And often they are not. Especially since most spells hit everything, while there is usually only one (or zero) 50+ hp creature opposing you
Modified by Sinist on 2015-04-16 14:12:26
all this stuff about 50+ HP creatures compared to stone rain damage sounds like an oversimplification to me. there is a reason why those big fat elementals cost 10 mana. sometimes you don't need to kill the craeture but just kill the player. or maybe you got an even bigger threat of your own to present. what i'm saying is that one creature that is hard to kill does not bring down the whole game's balance. it all depends on the restrictions that you get through to bring it into play. heck, the phoenix actually cannot die (in almost all scenarios) - would you say it's a game breaker? ok you can play your big fat E10 but is your earth mana going to regenerate in time for you to use healing cards if i was prepared to launch my attack at that point? there are infinite examples. i am actually astonished to hear that kind of comment from you jero. maybe there is something in the game's deep depths that i cannot understand yet? maybe you wanted to make some other kind of point and you have chosen a poor example to do it? i dunno what to say
But not everything is "shiny and marvelous" about him. Check his profile winrates with new classes after his return: you see which ones he gave more attention... I presenced a serie of duels between GrimJ0ker and Plynx... tough it was even in the final result, Plynx won most of his games picking Time.
are we ruling out the possibility that he found the chronomancer to be the most interesting and innovative of all the new classes? i personally believe that if indeed he showed a preference, it could easily be for both reasons (loving the design and wanting to have an edge, no matter how small)
in any case, i am not trying to claim that plynx is "shiny and marvelous" or anything like that. first of all, i do not know him personally and even if he really is the exceptional player that i consider him to be, that has nothing to do with his character and personality. however, i have to say that in my experience he seems to be a nice guy overall
Modified by filip on 2015-04-16 19:23:03
@Cybernetic: I just wrote my thoughts about Plynx without the hype and mysterious genius aura that surrounds him. The word genius is a tricky one (requires testing exams). For me, he was just meticulous.
it's really tricky to evaluate jero's comments about plynx here. what do you think beethoven would have to say about bach? would they regard each other as a genius? let me explain. i am not saying that jero is underestimating or misjudging plynx on purpose. however, according to jero's own perpective, plynx is not doing something inhuman, or even impressive. he is just a worthy adversary, roughly around his own level of competence! maybe i'm wrong about this but that's my impression. meticulous, according to google, means showing great attention to detail; very careful and precise. so what about plynx's creativity and unique approach to specific cards and game states? what about his strategical instincts? or perhaps jero you believe that all those things can be summed up under the ability to perform precise calculations? if that is the case (and plynx is very very good at doing that) then we could actually call him a genius in this game no? if on the other hand, you believe there are other qualities that a great spectro player can have, but plynx does not have them, what would those be in your opinion? i'm really really interesting in hearing your point of view!
Modified by filip on 2015-04-16 19:29:15
about game balance: i think we can all agree that any game that includes the element of luck and presents each player with different kinds of resources cannot ever be perfectly balanced. when we call that kind of game to be "well-balanced", we actually mean that the chances of victory between 2 players of exactly the same skill are as close to 50% as possible (but not necessarily exactly 50%, as that would be technically infeasible)
Let only players of "trusted good skill" work together in a Classes Winrates Challenge, till 100 notation mark of every class confrontation (100 trainings%). I could contribute no problems, just organize in new thread, write a list of players, an usual day / timezone to meet and help for Statistics closer to the Truth.
the devs actually have the ability to retrieve duel stats from players of a specific level range. if they isolated results from level 40+ players only, for a period of 3 months, would you consider that to be clear enough evidence for game balance purposes?
Modified by filip on 2015-04-16 19:05:10 HeadphonesGirl | 2015-04-16 19:06:55 |
...
the devs actually have the ability to retrieve duel stats from players of a specific level range. if they isolated results from level 40+ players only, for a period of 3 months, would you consider that to be clear enough evidence for game balance purposes?
I feel like they won't do this for some reason -- it's been asked before, but I'm pretty sure the highest we've seen is 25.
HeadphonesGirl | 2015-04-16 19:09:21 |
If I had to take a guess I'd wager that maybe Estarh feels the sample size is too small getting that high in the levels. He is super into statistics and probably has pretty strong feelings about when they're useful or not.
But this is just me speculating.
I feel like they won't do this for some reason -- it's been asked before, but I'm pretty sure the highest we've seen is 25.
well perhaps then jero could be right. perhaps the game is not so well-balanced as we think it is when played at its greatest level. perhaps the devs have chosen this level of balance because they feel that if they tried to make it as close to perfect (balance-wise) as possible when played by those players, then it would stop being fun for all the others (since you would need to have all sorts of great skills in order to take proper advantage of your cards and prevent your opponent from doing the same). again, the phoenix is a good example of what i'm trying to describe: it needs to be quite strong, since it comes with a big restriction - committing 10 of your fire mana. but a relatively inexperienced player will not be able to play around it and take proper advantage of the fire mana restriction. so he/she will lose to a phoenix wall and get angry or discouraged, probably coming to the conclusion that this is a poorly balanced game, not worth his/her time at all
Modified by filip on 2015-04-16 22:32:17
also regarding game balance: i really like HPG's suggestion that we should not look at single duels as separate entities, but as a part of longer series (ie a match). this holds true for lots and lots of games out there (poker is one example, MtG is another). heck, even chess tournaments utilize this kind of structure and chess is a 100% skill game, like jero has said in that other thread. but even in chess, there are random factors related to human nature, so this is a nice way to even them out and crown a single champion
Modified by filip on 2015-04-16 20:15:28 Jeronimo | 2015-04-16 21:06:41 |
-To be, or not to be a genious, that is the question- Shakespeare Genius is an appreciation from a person's point of view. In common language is often considered to call genius a person who is highly intelligent... and "there is no real problem" BUT, my differences respect the use of that word -genius- are mainly semantic.
Genius is that one that comes from birth and shows in first years of life signs of intuitive skills (Mozart). Beneath a genius then come all type of developed intelligences, with time/effort/attention, and this people excels in their areas, but after who knows how much passed through.
We barely know about Plynx is right... but if you reserve word Genius to people like Mozart (there is documented evidence/anecdotes), will you rush to place Plynx at the same level?
Respect Plynx I did have a small conversation with him... and he told me that he once decided to figure out how his brained worked, thus for he payed attention to every reasoning and read whole lot about cognitive science. That's my main evidence, he chose to be meticulous (or another synonym you prefer).
------------------------ And it's actually normal that people that thinks too much and too carefully end becoming a sort of "demigods" to others who are intelectually/logically just above average (or without a successful full dedication of self-study as Plynx did). And I'm glad he did it... results are impressive as you can appreciate.
I have met other people that achieves in surpassing themselves. Since Plynx invested in self-logical perfectionism, he developed great "valuable inner skills" (such as analysis and prospecting) that can later apply to every other activities of his life... So in the end... He will look to normal people like a genius "Mozart style" in this or that, etc.
PETITION: Move all related posts to Plynx into a separate new topic named: Plynx, genius or hype? Modified by Jeronimo on 2015-04-16 22:16:40
like you said: semantics both you and plynx are incredibly strong spectro players. is it so important whether your skills come from raw talent or lots of practice? how can we ever know for sure anyway?
If I had to take a guess I'd wager that maybe Estarh feels the sample size is too small getting that high in the levels. He is super into statistics and probably has pretty strong feelings about when they're useful or not.
maybe we can find some middle ground. perhaps 30+ or 35+ would be high enough for jero and numerous enough for estarh?
Modified by filip on 2015-04-17 00:58:53 CyberneticPony | 2015-04-17 01:08:45 |
PETITION: Move all related posts to Plynx into a separate new topic named: Plynx, genius or hype?
While this might be awkward for him if he ever came back, it seems like if there's enough demand we should still do it.
tbh i don't think you two will find lots of support in your hypothesis
Classes Winrates Screen is a solid evidence for those who choose to believe in percentages.When this "evidence" is shown to me, I'm more esceptic asking: Are disconnects included? Did players that lost, have a chance to win but they misscalculated? Were victories accompanied by key cards such as Dragon or Tornado?
all random events (either positive or negative in their contribution to the game result) will even themselves out in a large enough sample size. it doesn't matter if the players are making mistakes or if their computers are crashing or if blazing comets are hitting random cities around the world while people are spectromancing. if one class is stronger than the other and the sample size is big enough, the final percentage will represent that difference. that's the beauty of statistics. placing a threshold on the level of the players that we choose to observe is useful in one way: it provides us a picture of what the balance of the game looks like at that skill level. let's say for example that there is one perfectly balanced game where 3 factions battle for dominance and each of them has exactly the same chance to win any given duel if wielded by players of the same skill and ability. however, it turns out that there is a neat little trick available to one of the 3 factions that noone had noticed before because you have to able to execute 400 apm (actions per minute) in order to take advantage from it. or perhaps it is something mental, something that only people of IQ greater than 180 can conceive and execute. you see, this is a perfectly balanced (and fun) game when played by "normal" people but it becomes absolutely broken (and meaningless) when played by "genius" people. or it could work the other way around, like the phoenix example that i described above
Modified by filip on 2015-04-17 02:29:41 Hypnotist | 2015-04-17 07:35:12 |
I'm sorry .P.S. sometimes it's good to practice one class against accidental. sometimes interesting to resist by random class against one with a strong player Modified by Hypnotist on 2015-04-17 07:40:03 MikeBnDe | 2015-04-18 16:22:01 |
Where is Plynx, btw? I hope he hasn't left the game again. I would love to read further sections of his guide. I disagree with CyberneticPony that the guide only contains infos everyone picks up on his own after playing a few hundred games. I don't think i would have gotten to level 30 without his guide.
HeadphonesGirl | 2015-04-18 16:58:39 |
Yes, it sounded like Plynx is extremely busy with his studies right now, but I hope he will still be able to finish the guide and dazzle us with some more tournament performances!
I'm here, I'm just extremely busy. I'm in a foreign country learning the language, attending school, and continuing my regular work and research as well. The last tournament just wasn't at a time I could make it and I'm not sure I could have devoted the time were that not so. I do plan to continue the guide when time permits. I get a vacation in 2 weeks in which time I'm hoping I can add another section.
I'm not surprised by this thread. I've seen similar things in other online games I've played. I know the feelings behind it, and the kind of person who gets enraged at me, or who wants to summarize me somewhat dismissively, and why. And I feel for these people, I really do. I go through a lot of emotional hurt myself. Every day, really. What causes them to lash out is the desire to strike back at the person they think is causing the hurt, but I didn't cause it in the first place. Emotions are self-generated for your own advancement.
Anyway, I do need to clarify some things which are outright misleading or false. What's being left out of CyberneticPony's claim of beating me is that for the one training game she did win, our first training game, was strictly that: a training game. For training purposes I used a poor opening meant to reflect typical competition for CyberneticPony (around level 10, playing strictly for card combos), revealed important cards I was holding and talked her through the positions and pointed out threats.
I also never told CyberneticPony she was mentally deficient or incapable of learning, or anything of the kind. I think CyberneticPony is smart but too invested in feeling smart and proving to others she is smart, to spend time feeling stupid (confused, unsure, wondering) which is necessary to advance. Although, I didn't say this to her either, so I'm not sure where that particular impression came from.
People keep grabbing my win profile to support various claims about me and/or the game or its balance, so I l need to remind them that I have probably over a thousand unrecorded games in my profile due to the previous 10 level duel limit, so my win record it is not a good place for someone to figure out how good I am with a class relative to the others or which class is stronger than another. My true recent win rate (since January) is higher than what is displayed in my win record. I try to play several hundred games with a class before moving on to a new class.
Previously, after playing the trial version of the game in which the free class was Holy, I bought the game and switched to playing Illusionist while I learned the game. Once I felt I had a handle on Illusionist, I switched to Dominator. I rotated through all the other classes (at the time, save Death which was soft-banned), but these are not in my profile. Of the new classes, I chose Chronomancer because it was the most confusing, and the hardest for me to play. I have yet to master Chronomancer, so I am not ready to switch predominately to another class. Ideally, I would want to see each matchup at dozens of times first, although that can take a long time now that there are so many classes, and I may itch to switch to a new class before then. However for the sake of the tournaments, in which I would need to play up to 12 different classes, I did try to play games in the other classes as well. Modified by Plynx on 2015-04-18 19:42:24 HeadphonesGirl | 2015-04-18 19:42:47 |
No worries Plynx. Although you are undoubtedly controversial at times (and I suppose you made enough of a splash lately that that is inevitable) I think the overwhelming consensus is that people are glad you're playing again and looking forward to the rest of the guide, whenever you do have the time. Hope your studies are going well.
No worries Plynx. Although you are undoubtedly controversial at times (and I suppose you made enough of a splash lately that that is inevitable) I think the overwhelming consensus is that people are glad you're playing again and looking forward to the rest of the guide, whenever you do have the time. Hope your studies are going well. Thanks HeadphonesGirl. I do care a lot about this game and the community. I just have so many things I want to do with my life. CyberneticPony | 2015-04-18 22:42:47 |
Anyway, I do need to clarify some things which are outright misleading or false. What's being left out of CyberneticPony's claim of beating me is that for the one training game she did win, our first training game, was strictly that: a training game. For training purposes I used a poor opening meant to reflect typical competition for CyberneticPony (around level 10, playing strictly for card combos), revealed important cards I was holding and talked her through the positions and pointed out threats.
I wasn't trying to demean you here, I was literally trying to point out that sometimes a worse player can beat a better player strictly down to card pool, and I gave evidence with the assumption move 1 was a reasonable move. Maybe you think otherwise (ie, move 1 was strictly bad), but I think if I played more games with you where you went all out I'd have still have won every so often, even if it was less frequent.
I also never told CyberneticPony she was mentally deficient or incapable of learning, or anything of the kind. I think CyberneticPony is smart but too invested in feeling smart and proving to others she is smart, to spend time feeling stupid (confused, unsure, wondering) which is necessary to advance. Although, I didn't say this to her either, so I'm not sure where that particular impression came from.
You said this out loud in a pretty clear manner. Even if I misconstrued what you actually thought, I am convinced that what you did say had this meaning. Maybe all you care about here is defending your image, in which case you'll probably succeed since I'm genuinely not a pleasant person because of my openness and harsh mentality, and that'll make you easier to believe. Still, I'm willing to accept that you maybe said things you did not mean or I misunderstood what you had said, and am going to let it go. That being said, I don't think I'm invested in feeling smart, and I never claimed not to be confused/unsure etc. I remember asking for clarifications and asking lots of questions, so if you still thought I was like that, then I think you probably had already made up your own interpretation of my character that just isn't accurate (in my opinion). Jeronimo | 2015-04-19 04:49:42 |
I'm not surprised by this thread. I've seen similar things in other online games I've played. I know the feelings behind it, and the kind of person who gets enraged at me, or who wants to summarize me somewhat dismissively, and why. And I feel for these people, I really do. I go through a lot of emotional hurt myself. Every day, really.
A joke out of context... Do you openly admit being a masochist?
The problem with offensive people lies in the mental procedures used to return to an inner peace right in the moment they are injured-> They share the defect of not filtering their mental disturbances through Logic "inner language", but rather spit out their inner chaos through offensive words "outer language". Mind and body have own distinctive languages: from the way you think to the way you walk.
What causes them to lash out is the desire to strike back at the person they think is causing the hurt, but I didn't cause it in the first place. Emotions are self-generated for your own advancement.
Emotions aren't self-generated to advance... Only Willpower (Logic) commands the Spirit to grow.
Emotions are latent natural responses (DNA coded) that trigger under certain interpretation of situations. Your offenders were only trying to feel better when injured by your achievements, returning to state zero (stability) in their minds since you altered their mental peace with your superiority. It's often the same story... the search for a calm conscience.
In the quest for own advancement Logic has the primary role, while Emotions have a supportive reinsurer role. Other factors that contribute are past experiences and personal philosophy in conflict with present.
EDIT: I cut my arguments for shorter post. Hope you can pass through my first line of black humour. It received negatives of course. It shows how much guys love you here. Modified by Jeronimo on 2015-04-20 17:30:39 CyberneticPony | 2015-04-19 08:17:32 |
About the conflict between Plynx and CyberneticPony: I will quote my dead friend Protagoras-> Man is the measure of all things. This would mean that everyone measures things from their experiences/perspective, such as Plynx giving labels to CyberneticPony, and viceversa (CP affirming she would beat "still often but less frequent" a 100% serious Plynx).
I said "every so often", which probably is a poor choice of words (slang), but it does not mean "often". Specifically I estimate it means "between 5-10% of the time".
I think the situation here had less to do with emotions, and more with cultural differences.
MikeBnDe | 2015-04-19 12:28:48 |
@CP: I seriously doubt that you would beat Plynx 5-10 times out of 100 games due to imbalance/bad card pools. No offense intended, but i think you underestimate the skill difference and how much it affects the game. I agree with filip regarding auto-winds and auto-losses. I think it needs a player of level like filip or so to exploit bad card pools against top players like grim/plynx. I have no real arguments to back up this claims, its just my experience from when i was level 10-20 and played higher skilled players. I dont think i ever had an auto-win due to the card pool. So, when plynx has more time, you could play 100 games in a row and we will see ;-) My guess would be 98:2. Or did i misunderstand you and you already proved that you win 5%-10% of the time against Plynx? (english ist not my native language).
Sinist | 2015-04-19 12:55:59 |
I saw autowin decks several times. but again, it is rare sight even among equally skilled players
CyberneticPony | 2015-04-19 15:35:46 |
@CP: So, when plynx has more time, you could play 100 games in a row and we will see ;-) My guess would be 98:2.
Well, I'd be up for the challenge, but I think a 98-2 winrate would be an insane thing to pull off. MikeBnDe | 2015-04-19 18:05:55 |
@CP: Ok, maybe 98-2 was a bit too much ;-) I am a little bit surprised that your level doesn't get higher, btw. Even though i disagree with quite a few things you say, i feel that you are definitely smarter than to peak at 13-14. You probably should reconsider some things Plynx said to you/about you, my impression was quite similar (not meant in a condescending way). I was stuck at level 15-20 for quite a while until i realized that i always played the same way (hard to put into words) and Plynxes guide and other posts from him helped me to change that and play a bit better, even though i will never be a top player, i am simply not too good in that game.
Modified by MikeBnDe on 2015-04-19 18:10:34 HeadphonesGirl | 2015-04-19 18:58:22 |
@CP:
Ok, maybe 98-2 was a bit too much ;-)
I am a little bit surprised that your level doesn't get higher, btw. Even though i disagree with quite a few things you say, i feel that you are definitely smarter than to peak at 13-14. You probably should reconsider some things Plynx said to you/about you, my impression was quite similar (not meant in a condescending way). I was stuck at level 15-20 for quite a while until i realized that i always played the same way (hard to put into words) and Plynxes guide and other posts from him helped me to change that and play a bit better, even though i will never be a top player, i am simply not too good in that game.
I think most players tend to "plateau" at certain levels for a while before eventually moving up.
CyberneticPony | 2015-04-19 20:05:24 |
I tend to have these periods where I have a loss streak, maybe out of frustration.
Like when I felt like I needed to play hard aggro, only to have somebody use their huge air pool to spam Fairie Sages followed by E4.
I have been stuck at level 14 for a while, but figure I'll eventually surpass it when I figure out my main mistake in matchups.
MikeBnDe | 2015-04-19 21:38:30 |
@HPG: Right, thats true, but CP has been stuck at 14 for quite a long time, longer than i expected.
@CP: Yes, i know these loss streaks, my advice is to take a break then, if only for 15-20 minutes or so.
CyberneticPony | 2015-04-20 23:48:17 |
@HPG: Right, thats true, but CP has been stuck at 14 for quite a long time, longer than i expected.
@CP: Yes, i know these loss streaks, my advice is to take a break then, if only for 15-20 minutes or so. If you want, you could play some training against me, and give me some pointers. That will likely help me play better.
MikeBnDe | 2015-04-21 07:11:31 |
@CP: I always like to help, but even though i am level 30 now, i don't think i am good enough to be a teacher, i still have a lot to learn myself and still make stupid plays too often (i think you even beat me the last two times we played and i just lost against level 10 and 3 other low-level players, i fear i will be level 2x soon again ;-) Maybe you can ask Grim or so, he would be better suited to give you some pointers. But what i can do is tell you what i think was critical for me to get a bit better. I know these comments don't sound too spectacular and you dismissed them as not helpful or for beginners/trivial when Plynx posted them, but for me they really made the difference, so i will say them again: 1. Don't try to play the same patterns all the time (mana creature, golem + spirit4 comes to mind, there are level 1x players who play that sequence EVERY time, not matter what the opponent does and what their card pool looks like). Try things you never did before. Question your move choices, think about plays you keep ignoring, and question your whole play style. For example, i always panicked when somebody played an elemental and all i thought was: "I have to kill this creature as soon as possible, before it gets too big." Of course killing an elemental soon is not a bad choice, but all i did was focus on that and not pay attention to other import things and alternatives. As a result, my moves were not so good. And i played hundreds of games according to these kind of dogmas. You will probably loose games because of trying totally new things, but you will learn. 2. I was exactly part of the group of players Plynx described: I did not pay enough attention to my mana flow. Every turn i played the creature/spell i thought was the strongest and did not pay attention to what it did to my mana and how it affects my future moves So i only played card by card and wrecked my future move potential instead of stacking my mana to find good series/patterns of play later on. I better stop now, because its hard for me to explain what i mean in english, but you hopefully get an idea waht i mean and give these points some thought again. At least for me, they were important, even though they sound trivial. Modified by MikeBnDe on 2015-04-21 10:37:00 CyberneticPony | 2015-04-21 14:32:24 |
Personally, I've noticed that most of my strategies are good with mana efficiency/expenditure but they are extremely all-in; I struggle to play midrange.
I am usually either focusing on dealing a lot of damage as fast as I can via burn/board wipe/big creature spam, or I play the slow game and use mostly gens/elementals/tempo slowers; but I often die if the opponent is able to hold against either of those; either by pressuring me enough, having a good wipe on my elementals, or making efficient defensive plays or being able to heal off my aggro.
I think that if I learn how to play a more median style, I might be able to improve considerably.
MikeBnDe | 2015-04-23 12:21:40 |
CP: Again, i really encourage you to try different things. In my opinion, the game is much deeper than deciding a strategy (hard aggro or slow game, as you put it) at the beginning and then simply following this strategy at all cost. Next time you play, start with e1 and then put a f5 next to it or try some other crazy things ;-)
Modified by MikeBnDe on 2015-04-23 12:26:47 Sinist | 2015-04-23 18:31:09 |
I have seen squirrels rush once MikeBnDe | 2015-04-23 19:38:08 |
I have seen squirrels rush once Squirrels rush? Backed up with Minotaur and w3, maybe? Lol, thats crazy, indeed ;-)
Modified by MikeBnDe on 2015-04-23 19:39:56 Sinist | 2015-04-23 19:42:44 |
No, just mad squirrels spam against empty slots (with a couple other creatures and air 6/fire 11 accumulating though), as far as I remember Clever had fun day then And I still managed to lose somehowModified by Sinist on 2015-04-23 19:43:20 MikeBnDe | 2015-04-23 19:45:53 |
No, just mad squirrels spam against empty slots (with a couple other creatures and air 6/fire 11 accumulating though), as far as I remember Clever had fun day then And I still managed to lose somehow Lol, you lost? ;-) I have to try that next time i play that class. A few days ago, i played someone who cast at least 10 control-1 creatures in one game. He lost ;-)
Modified by MikeBnDe on 2015-04-23 19:47:56 Sinist | 2015-04-23 20:11:28 |
Yes, got too greedy with stuff like "Oh look! Another squirrel is coming! Sorcery 3, free mana, yay!" *forgetting about other creatures in the process* Dont try that at home though Modified by Sinist on 2015-04-23 21:47:11
squirrel in an empty slot can be played at times when you want to add a small amount of pressure without investing mana (mad hermit mana is not very valueable:P) in other words you don't want to commit any more in the board because you're waiting for the sweeper. basically an alternative to passing the turn, it may even be better than W1 in cases where slight board pressure is more important than mana advantage because you really want to force the sweeper
Modified by filip on 2015-04-23 21:23:52 Sinist | 2015-04-23 21:46:37 |
"Slight" is a great overstatement StephanieF | 2015-04-26 21:53:54 |
Thanks HeadphonesGirl. I do care a lot about this game and the community. I just have so many things I want to do with my life.
When the gods come down to Earth lol...
Sinist | 2015-04-26 22:46:34 |
... When the gods come down to Earth lol...
holy 5 or spirit 5 you mean?
StephanieF | 2015-05-14 02:07:21 |
I'm not surprised by this thread. I've seen similar things in other online games I've played. I know the feelings behind it, and the kind of person who gets enraged at me, or who wants to summarize me somewhat dismissively, and why. And I feel for these people, I really do. I go through a lot of emotional hurt myself. Every day, really. What causes them to lash out is the desire to strike back at the person they think is causing the hurt, but I didn't cause it in the first place. Emotions are self-generated for your own advancement.
I think CyberneticPony is smart but too invested in feeling smart and proving to others he is smart, to spend time feeling stupid (confused, unsure, wondering) which is necessary to advance. Although, I didn't say this to him either, so I'm not sure where that particular impression came from... That's a 100% correct analysis of CP's self-generated emotions.
A joke full in context... Do you openly admit being a masochist?
The problem with offensive people lies in the mental procedures used to return to an inner peace right in the moment they are injured-> They share the defect of not filtering their mental disturbances through Logic "inner language", but rather spit out their inner chaos through offensive words "outer language". (Mind and body have own distinctive languages: from the way you think to the way you walk.) This was Jero's correct answer to
I go through a lot of emotional hurt myself. Every day, really.
I think, you are like me a so called Empath (idiotic psychology-word) lol, and I have life-essential advices for you...
I never give just the slightest energy on average and therefore completely uninteresting people like for example CP...now that you uncovered it, I see this too clearly, but he was never interesting enough for me to go in his Aura... I had a time when I did this to an extrem, and it was terrible! We the (potential) Angels are not here for putting on the shoes of the humans, we have all what they experience atm on our own timetrack, so nothing to learn at all, you just damage yourself when you do that! Karma can't be changed, so help is a complete illusion...help yourself by disregarding them! The Aura of an interesting person you will see or better said feel always, no need to put your eyes everywhere.
I had to learn to clearly separate myself and protect my space/my Aura and not let them in with all their negative emotions and dirty energy...I had to learn to create a clear border...dangerous places are for example the train and stations, all places where you are in a passive moment with lots of people around...then you should open your protection-shield...
Your Aura was for example overwhelming for me from the very first second, no need at all to search, we are Empaths, we have a sense more...all we have to do is to keep our Aura clean! Of course there are humans like Jero where we want to take the risk and go all in...this is always fine, it's always a win finally...or better said already by you Emotions are self-generated for your own advancement.
I go through a lot of emotional hurt myself. Every day, really.
That's absolutely fine my dear, as long as you do it on your full own intend, when for example the self-generated emotion love comes up lol... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqRXahtDX7o
(Btw, Jero is clearly an Empath too imo...but so full of fear to lose controlthat logic has become his religion, right Jero?!) Modified by StephanieF on 2015-05-14 02:27:13 CyberneticPony | 2015-05-14 11:38:58 |
<Marked for death> Modified by CyberneticPony on 2015-05-14 16:34:43 Wavelength | 2015-05-14 16:29:01 |
Deleting the off-topic messages from this thread soon, because a thread about mono-players is worth having and this is derailing it.
I'll leave them up for 24 hours in case you want to copy the text and move it elsewhere (such as "Hello Again" or a new thread in Off-Topic). Further off-topic messages in this thread will be immediately deleted.
MikeBnDe | 2015-05-14 22:18:42 |
Thats right, wavelength, but Stephanie's post is off-topic as well, CP only responded to it, so you should delete that one as well. Wait you said messageS, so you probably intended to do that anyway, sorry. Correct. Both were off-topic. ~WaveModified by Wavelength on 2015-05-14 22:35:34 HeadphonesGirl | 2015-05-15 02:23:15 |
To be honest I feel like it's pretty normal for us to digress in topics here, the stuff in this post that's not specifically about mono players was a natural progression from that topic and is still related to the game. Personally I would recommend just moving it to a separate topic if necessary since there's probably some value to that discussion, re: what makes a top player etc.
Wavelength | 2015-05-15 03:03:04 |
To be honest I feel like it's pretty normal for us to digress in topics here, the stuff in this post that's not specifically about mono players was a natural progression from that topic and is still related to the game. Personally I would recommend just moving it to a separate topic if necessary since there's probably some value to that discussion, re: what makes a top player etc. You can relax, I'm not touching anything that has to do with the game. Only removing the most flagrantly off topic stuff.
|