Interestingly enough, I haven’t talked about poker for a very long time and you’re the second person tonight to present this opinion to me. Yeah I know, it’s either a statistical anomoly or it’s information bias.
I disagree with your opinion, of course. Poker isn’t as luck oriented as you say it is. Poker isn’t strictly mathematical. It isn’t only about variance, average winrate etc.
(Bad beats is variance, and in your list it’s tautology.)
It’s about minimising losses. It’s about maximising wins. It’s about recognising situations and adjusting your play accordingly. It’s about reading people’s plays, determining the reasons behind the plays. Learning the players, and adjusting your play. It’s about setting up impressions of yourself and capitalising on them.
The irony is intensely awesome, though. People who believe it’s all about luck and statistics are traditionally tight players, only playing the numbers. Only playing the statistical advantage, and folding every other time.
So GOOD players capitalise on this, and force them out of hand after hand, maximising their wins, and if they player pushes back, they fold and minimise their loss - all of which reinforces the tight player’s image of how luck based the game is.
To add to poker discussion, there’s a big reason why in great poker tournaments there are a small list of players that are in 80% of tournaments final if they participated in that tournament. Rarely you’ll see a new name in finales, and others will be players you already saw on previous finals. Those players aren’t luckier then the rest, they know how to play. Roullet is about luck, poker is about skills. Yes, luck plays some factor, but on average everyone has the same amount of luck/ bad luck, so winning isn’t about getting lucky.
This conversation about poker is irrelevant, Poker has 52 cards, they never change. Implied odds.
Gems has more cards, more levels, traits, more randomness with gems falling etc. Even on normal level, I have had the Randomness destroy my entire pvp team in 1-2 turns. This is because the player whom I’m matched with is 4 x stronger than me, and when playing on equal terms of AI, I’m going to get turned off this game quickly if I’m unable to have “fun” winning matches. This game will go from what I play 15+ hours a week, to maybe 1 hour then maybe nothing if the “fun” is sucked out of it because I’m not able to win matches after I reach whatever rank pvp decides to turn the combo breaker off/on.
I know plenty others whom cant win often even on normal mode, this will further deter them from playing further in the game.
It looks like my current sould “grind” is going to be replaced by a level grind as they’re locking me out of Warlord IV difficulty until I hit lvl 250 (iirc) and I am 140 right now and perfectly happy doing the challenges on Warlord IV for the soul reward.
I’m surprised more people aren’t leaning on @Sirrian about this point. Feels like it got lost in the PvP difficulty uproar. But I really think it should be level 100+ can do what they like.
Hmmm… I guess it would hurt more the avarage players who can’t keep up with the better team comps. Personally I wouldn’t care. Most part of the time I’ve played this game, was when the scout feature wasn’t a thing on the game.
The good news is that it does exist, and I see no reason to not use it. I rarely ignore any feature on any game. Even those I don’t like, if they help, they help…
That’s why I’ve been playing on Normal Difficulty all this time. It was the better way to get fast rewards, even if I hate the combo breaker all along.
my niece couldnt run my 2 skel**, bone dragon, green slime* setup – but found my glade warden***, valk***, sheggara’s heart, sheggra worked well for her.
(*'s tell how many traits)
i have to disagree about that. I started keeping track after it was mentioned in the preview. i play many games where my first half (8+ turns showing) i get about 40 plays and in the last 7 i get another 30 or so… for me it will really be about a 50% cut.
they have posted this exact idea on another thread, i copied it over last night.
I like all of it except… The minimum level for difficulty.
Yeah, I agree. I’m level 90 and play warlord III. I gain a level every couple days. The notion of not playing warlord III again for another 220 days doesn’t thrill me.
It’s especially [quote=“Gunmetal, post:251, topic:4296, full:true”]
I like all of it except… The minimum level for difficulty.
Yeah, I agree. I’m level 90 and play warlord III. I gain a level every couple days. The idea notion of not playing warlord III again for another 220 days doesn’t thrill me.
[/quote]
It also doesn’t make sense given the logic provided. If the problem is that early players are toggling the difficulty and it’s causing them to ragequit b/c they forget to change it then put restrictions around early players, not everyone.
Crafting please devs: 10 minor= 1 major 10 major= 1 runic, 10 runic= 1 arcane
not many are insane enough to benefit like me, and meh only 6 runics, aint that much.
Just stopping by to say that the treasure map change isn’t nearly the disaster I thought it would be. I’ve had a few runs with 100+ turns, I’ve gotten a couple of vaults–that’s as successful as I ever was before the maps.
The BAD runs are much shorter, that’s for sure. But even though I’d still prefer more turns (I just like treasure maps, so more is better), the change doesn’t really feel very dramatic or drastic.
