GoGoBoy | 2018-01-19 10:39:19 |
Today I played a few games with Mr. daÑota. In the last battle, he tried
to convey to me the idea that I'm too easy a rival for him. I suggest you evaluate this fight. And also to share the impressions of the game. Thank you.
I haven't seen the game yet but anyway it is not polite no matter what. I remember spectating a game between two top 5 players and one of them told something like "you are too easy" to another after a few wins in a row. I advised in common chat for the latter player to use the same class and immediately got invite for a game from first player. I guess that was supposed to be punishment for my suggestion. Surprisingly I won pretty fast due to nice cards and opponent didn't have a chance. My point is when people say something like that to experienced players they probably don't realize how important luck is.
Very nice game. Maybe he meant that time is too powerful class.
GoGoBoy | 2018-01-23 09:46:20 |
I thought so, too. But first he said: "easy" or "ez".
Did he say it after the loss or during the game? Actually I was really surprised that you won after watching so many unblocked creatures attacking you but I am a bad player so I assume it is a wrong impression and you knew what you were doing. So I guess we need opinions from more experienced players :) Modified by Sandu on 2018-01-23 12:32:40 GoGoBoy | 2018-01-24 21:44:42 |
He said it when he put the second Phoenix.
they probably don't realize how important luck is.
luck is not especially important in this game on the long run. maybe it can somehow affect one particular duel. but play 10 duels vs an opponent who is double your level and you'll end up losing double the amount of duels than those you win
Modified by filip on 2018-02-23 14:57:51 TooLazyToThink | 2018-02-26 09:16:58 |
...
luck is not especially important in this game on the long run. maybe it can somehow affect one particular duel. but play 10 duels vs an opponent who is double your level and you'll end up losing double the amount of duels than those you win
I was talking about luck in a particular duel of course. My current record is "3 wins in a row vs a player with 30 level difference between us". Of course I realize I am not a better player and it does prove how important luck is.
i would call that variance an example in professional poker: of course you could lose in a specific hand/deal, even though you played in a perfect manner (you calculated correctly all the odds, made the ideal bets, successfully outsmarted or outbluffed your opponents, etc) that doesn't make the game less skill-based (even though it does contain luck)
professional poker players make big money on the long run. but they need to be consistent (and manage their earnings wisely) in order to overcome variance
Modified by filip on 2018-02-26 11:02:25 TooLazyToThink | 2018-02-26 11:41:33 |
I cannot compare spectro to poker. As far as I know it is basically clear who wins a poker deal, you either have a better hand or not. Player skill just determines amount of money earned and sometimes you can bluff to win with a weaker hand. I think it makes more sense to compare spectro to chess where skill does make much difference. Except you start in different positions every time and don't see all opponent figures :) Tendou0 | 2018-03-01 14:12:37 |
Yeah, I would agree with both. Spectro is more comparable to chess in the way Sandu described, but the point still stands that, unlike in chess, where you can pinpoint in most if not all situations what you have done wrong in a specific match, in Spectro it is more like you can get better or worse hands.
Wavelength | 2018-05-02 01:28:22 |
Spectro actually compares closer to Poker than it does to any other game, in my opinion. A huge element of Spectro, like Poker, is reading your opponent's hidden information and intentions based on their play (and using math to extrapolate what the odds are that a certain move will work, based on the assumptions you've made from the way they are playing and the knowledge of what you have).
Bluffing moves that you can't actually make, or strategically withholding information about your hand (even if it puts you in a weaker absolute position), can win Spectro games that should be lost. And you have to know when to pivot to a new strategy and when to all-in on a strategy that is less than 100% to win.
The comparisons to chess and to other combat CCGs also make some sense, but don't sleep on how much Spectro resembles poker!!
Modified by Wavelength on 2018-05-02 01:28:56 TooLazyToThink | 2018-05-02 13:03:46 |
Spectromancer bluffing is very limited, you can't bluff to have a specific card in 4 out of 5 elemental schools because there is about 50% chance that the opponent has that card and thus your bluff is doomed to fail. I switched to spectating spectromancer games recently and sometimes I see weird situations when people make bad moves just to hide some info like putting Fire 1 to the rightmost position and then Water 6 cannot go there. It looks ok until you spectate a game where player loses because of it. Having Earth 12 or Air 9 in a wrong position affects game outcome quite often too.
Modified by TooLazyToThink on 2018-05-02 13:04:27
there are ways to figure out that your opponent doesn't have a specific card. then (assuming you don't have it either) you can go ahead and bluff for it it is not a very important aspect of the game in my opinion, but it can definitely give you an edge in some duels
Modified by filip on 2018-05-03 15:50:29 Wavelength | 2018-05-06 09:37:03 |
I understand the argument that bluffing in Spectro can be overrated and I agree that it's not worth making objectively weak moves just for the purpose of throwing your opponent off.
Having said that, I think that some people underestimate the value of information in Spectro. It's not just about bluffing a tactic that you can't or don't intend to use - it's also about withholding information from your opponent entirely. For example, consider a situation in which you've revealed your third Fire slot as Minotaur Commander, early in a match. Not only does your opponent know that you don't have Inferno (which can't be in the fourth slot), but if they're holding Chain Lightning, they also know that your one basic Sweeper is Flame Wave (and they can also be 99%+ confident that you don't have Phoenix nor Lightning Cloud). You've just given your opponent a lot of information that they can use.
Not only that, but consider what happens if that same opponent wants to clear a few of your creatures, and chooses to do so using the slightly turn-inefficient Wall of Fire rather than the quicker Chain Lightning, which they're holding. That player hasn't shown you their own Sweeper, and you still don't know what it is. Until they reveal it, you will have to be careful about placing sweep-vulnerable creatures like Elf Hermit, Faerie Apprentice, and Elven Healer onto the board while they have Fire or Air mana built up. If they reveal their Chain Lightning, you could "safely" place these creatures on the board whenever your opponent doesn't have a lot of Air mana.
Withholding information in this way can force an opponent to make a move that turns out to be far more inefficient in the long run, because of the need to protect against more angles and more possible counters. I think it must be for this reason that players like Plynx and SeaLeta tended to spam several of the same cheap, first-slot creatures in the early game whenever it was feasible - cards like Sea Sprite, Faerie Apprentice, and occasionally even Goblin Berserker.
Modified by Wavelength on 2018-05-06 09:37:47 |