too luck based

[Henry_the_dragon]

The trouble is that there is an upper limit on skill right now, with so few cards and lots of time to get to know how each one works and the counters for them, so luck can sometimes be the deciding factor between equally matched players at high ratings. As more cards are added, it will become harder to reach the highest skill levels and then highly skilled players will have more of an edge.
.

This was pretty much exactly what i was trying to say. I probably overstated the 80-20 thing. I really shouldn't compare mtg in its current form to SE, because magic has been going for 20 years and SE has what? like 2 at most? So for that I apologize.

At this point it just seems that the factions without access to guaranteed kill cards and more importantly board wipes are at a large disadvantage.

Also id just like to say when i wrote that post, i was pretty exhausted and just wanted to get it posted so i didnt really think a whole lot about word choice and what i was saying.

[Werlix]

Comparatively speaking, SE does favor 'luckier' players more. That's just due to game design and card limit.

Any SE card drawn can be a 'resource' or 'land' in mtg. That makes the 'cards drawn' more flexible. In mtg, if you draw a 'resource' aka land card in late/mid game; you are stuck with it. Since there are no lands in SE, every card is playable, increasing the possibility of what we call favorable top deck.

Card limit: due to the deck size in SE, the chances of drawing the win cons (or similar) are higher. For example, I need a top deck burn to win - I have fb,Ls,nova. Or I need an ally on board; it's 'easier' and 'more certain' in SE as compared to mtg. Mtg deck size is min. 60.

While I don't disagree that MtG may favour (at least at the moment with the limited card pool) skilled players more, these two reasons are just wrong.

The 'land' mechanic increases luck. If you draw a land there's only one thing you can do with it - place it as a resource. In SE every single card can be placed as a resource OR used in game, thus increasing options and chance for players to use skill. Also MtG has the concepts of mana flood and mana screw which even with a perfectly balanced deck can happen to anyone at any time and is beyond the player's control. Eg Top 6 cards of your deck are non-lands can often = game over.

And a smaller deck means you can rely on deck synergy and strategic combinations rather than having to hope for lucky top decks.

There are better reasons why MtG might be a more skillful game. Such as the larger card pool and more complicated card interactions which give players a large headroom for creating good decks and making crucial plays during the game.

[Raphael Majere]

While I don't disagree that MtG may favour (at least at the moment with the limited card pool) skilled players more, these two reasons are just wrong.

The 'land' mechanic increases luck. If you draw a land there's only one thing you can do with it - place it as a resource. In SE every single card can be placed as a resource OR used in game, thus increasing options and chance for players to use skill. Also MtG has the concepts of mana flood and mana screw which even with a perfectly balanced deck can happen to anyone at any time and is beyond the player's control. Eg Top 6 cards of your deck are non-lands can often = game over.

And a smaller deck means you can rely on deck synergy and strategic combinations rather than having to hope for lucky top decks.

I disagree. simple probability dictates that if I needed a certain card to win in SE, I am far more (a lot more) likely to get it as compared to Mtg. MTG, you'll have 20 - 24 lands. That's a about 1/3 (or more) of the deck. If I needed a certain card to win/increase board control/push forward my deck agenda, I am less likely to draw 1 as compared to SE since there is always a chance I draw a land.

Also the max copies of a card in mtg is 4, exactly the same as SE, yet Mtg decks are 60 while SE decks are around 40. It's much easier, i.e "lucky" to draw the card I need.

The long story made short: If I give a noob a well constructed SE deck and MtG and teach him the game; he will take a much shorter time to improve his win/loss ratio for SE as compared to mtG

2 reasons:

IMO, SE is more "luck based" (due to simple probability)
MtG require a fair bit of more skill as mentioned by you "larger card pool and more complicated card interactions".

Lastly, Mtg also requires more skill in deck building.

Also, mana screw and mana flood in mtg, can be solved by taking the mulligan. By choosing not to take a mulligan, the player essentially made a "choice". (This is a 'skill'). Some players may play on with only 2 lands in hand, hoping to get lands in upcoming draws, that's a risk that he accepts. Vice versa, in the case of mana flood, sometimes if I have a game-changing high cc card in my hand, I might just play on not taking the mulligan, hoping that my next few draws are low cc cost cards that can help me stall until i can cast the high cc card.

If anyone's playing QM, it's quite often that I lose to players playing t1 kris, t2 puwen, t3 aldon, etc - massive draw, followed by mass burn. It's hard to recover from the combination. It's simply more likely to happen in SE as compared to MtG, again, this is seen as 'lucky' draw. It does not happen so often in mtg.

[Zeuhl]

I'm confused. Wouldn't it be much lesser luck if you have a greater chance to draw the card you need or you intend to have rather than a greater chance to pick something you don't need and then be at an disadvantage because of a bad draw? Well, Of course it depends on the perception of the person playing if he is winning or losing.

[Archm4ge]

i am not an outstanding player but i know this: if u think this game is all about luck, its a sign that u need better deck building skills. true, luck does play a part but i would say its only 20%, the rest of it is deck building, understanding the hero that ur opponent plays (like what cards can u expect), decision making skills on Sacrificing, Choosing which cards to play, what to attack, ability to change strategy to react to the current situation. Its more skill based than u think. Good decks are decks whereby even if a particular card doesnt appear, u will have other cards that help u fulfil ur objective of victory

If u look at the top players playing, u will find that they will most usually have the card they need when they need it. Luck? Think again

[Werlix]

I'm confused. Wouldn't it be much lesser luck if you have a greater chance to draw the card you need or you intend to have rather than a greater chance to pick something you don't need and then be at an disadvantage because of a bad draw? Well, Of course it depends on the perception of the person playing if he is winning or losing.

Yes exactly.

In MtG if 10 of my remaining 40 cards in my deck are going to help me then if I draw one I got "lucky" with a 1/4 chance.

In SE a similar scenario would be having 15 of my remaining 25 cards that will help me. Thus if I draw one I was only "lucky" with a 3/5 chance. Not really lucky at all, so there's much less of those silly lucky top deck moments.

To expand upon Raphael's logic would be to say that a very skill based game would have 1000 card decks with 950 lands in them. The most skillful player will draw enough non-lands to win... hmmm, no

I still think that currently MtG is more skill based but I think in the future, with a larger card pool, because of the "no lands" mechanic of the game, SE could become more skillful.

[Werlix]

Also, mana screw and mana flood in mtg, can be solved by taking the mulligan. By choosing not to take a mulligan, the player essentially made a "choice". (This is a 'skill'). Some players may play on with only 2 lands in hand, hoping to get lands in upcoming draws, that's a risk that he accepts. Vice versa, in the case of mana flood, sometimes if I have a game-changing high cc card in my hand, I might just play on not taking the mulligan, hoping that my next few draws are low cc cost cards that can help me stall until i can cast the high cc card.

Mulligan helps but you can still keep a 3-land hand then have either 5 lands on top of your deck or 6 non-lands... and that will just lose the game for you. No chance for skill there, just a straight loss. Same with having a group of 3-5 lands on top of your deck in late game. It happens to everyone sometimes and it's something you just have to put up with as a MtG player - but you can't argue it makes the game more skillful.

[Qtang]

Again, it is clear that in Game play, luck it most important factor. Many folks are talking about Sac or moves, however, those thing are all limited to draw, and can be planed out perfectly with not very hard.

But the another part, deck building will show the skills or in other term, how deep they get into the games.

When I said skills, I am refer to up level skills, which someone have to be trained for a certain amount time to get it(usually months or years), like horse riding or card racing is skills. But drive a car (which can be learn in 3 days) is not skills to me.

[Nerdom]

Its really frusterating how much luck goes way over skill in se. I would say that despite how well my decks are made or how well i play during a game. I will lose just because my opponent got luckier than i did. Probably like 80% luck 20% skill. Just makes me not want to play any more when i lose like 4 in a row simply because i didnt draw the right cards at the right time. This is only really true playing people with upwards of 250 ratings. It seems that if both people know what they are doing, its just luck that determines who wins. I understand that se is earlu in development sort of. But its definately lacking much of a skill factor. Pretty much every game is: who gets board control first? Does opponwnt have a wipe or a wall? No? Player 1 wins. Makes me appreciate mtg that much more.

MTG is much more skill based and I win most of my games online because of this. The mulligan system plays a huge part in this. The opening hand will often decide if your chasing the game or not also in SE I find the draw system fustrating. I don't think it has anything to do with the amount of cards available. I can't put my finger on it but it's just not quite right and after playing magic I'm hooked and very rarely play SE simply because the luck factor is now very evident. I hope to play a lot of SE once the new expansion comes out but to be frank wulven really need to get there arse in gear. There simply isn't enough new content and updates and MGT is just to big and likely to blow wulven out of the water unless wulven maintain people's interest with new cards. On the plus side the rating system in SE is by far better which makes the game rewarding. Rewarding the player is an absolute must. Come on Shadow Era step it up.

[Raphael Majere]

Different markets, IMO. I would say those who find SE too 'luck based'' would simply drift to mtg while those who find mtg too stuffy would come to SE.