Close

View Poll Results: Do you think we should reduce max deck size to 80 + hero for Quick Match?

Voters
56. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    24 42.86%
  • No

    29 51.79%
  • Other

    3 5.36%
Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 89
  1. #21
    Senior Member jonmaciel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    United States (GMT-4)
    Posts
    1,854
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Consistency matters for a 40 card deck when they are playing aggro. Currently, there are plenty of cards that serve redundant purposes allowing mid range and late game to use big decks just as consistently as if they using a 40 card deck. In essence, an 80card mid range deck has an automatic advantage over a 40card mid range deck simply through attrition.
    IGN: TJ jonmaciel
    TG: @jonmaciel

    Elder, Mentoring Officer


    ShadowEra.Net Editor

  2. #22
    Senior Member qaz92zaq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NJ GMT -5
    Posts
    1,502
    Tournaments Joined
    4
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Gondorian View Post
    It currently looks like the community is split, but there is a while to go on the poll.

    For those who voted no, I am interested in why.

    Q: Do you like piloting 80+ card decks?

    Q: Do you like facing 80+ card decks?

    Q: Are you voting on behalf of other people who might like piloting/facing 80+ card decks?


    If one or both of the first two apply, please can you elaborate here.

    If it's the latter, then please can you bring this thread to their attention, so we can get their input.
    Regarding the first 2 I'm mostly indifferent, (well I guess I'd prefer to face a 120 deck than a more tuned deck but that has nothing to do with the quality of the match itself).

    The reason I voted no is because I feel it limits flexibility without actually solving a problem imo (though I guess I also don't really consider the exstance of fat decks a problem).

    As I said above if a 40 card deck mills out, it will likely mill out against a 80 or 120 deck, going through even 60 cards is extremely tough. With that being said I know people still use 120 decks despite me being unable to think of any advantage to them, so I assume that

    a) Other people must enjoy playing them and I do not know who these people are or if they have forum accounts, at best I can try to message them every time I hit one in QM

    b) I'm missing something

    Additionally I know some people have set up fat tournaments in the past and might do it again in the future.


    Now it is possible reasons (A) and tournaments will work just as well at 80 cards the whole point being to use the fattest deck possible but I see no reason to cut the flexibility unless there is an actual problem being solved. Of course if these decks exist for some other reason I'm unaware of I can't comment at all on whether 80 cards would matter, and again am in favor of keeping the flexibility there.

  3. #23
    Devoted Fan Gondorian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    England (GMT+0)
    Posts
    24,045
    Tournaments Joined
    1000
    Tournaments Won
    999
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by qaz92zaq View Post
    Regarding the first 2 I'm mostly indifferent, (well I guess I'd prefer to face a 120 deck than a more tuned deck but that has nothing to do with the quality of the match itself).

    The reason I voted no is because I feel it limits flexibility without actually solving a problem imo (though I guess I also don't really consider the exstance of fat decks a problem).

    As I said above if a 40 card deck mills out, it will likely mill out against a 80 or 120 deck, going through even 60 cards is extremely tough. With that being said I know people still use 120 decks despite me being unable to think of any advantage to them, so I assume that

    a) Other people must enjoy playing them and I do not know who these people are or if they have forum accounts, at best I can try to message them every time I hit one in QM

    b) I'm missing something

    Additionally I know some people have set up fat tournaments in the past and might do it again in the future.


    Now it is possible reasons (A) and tournaments will work just as well at 80 cards the whole point being to use the fattest deck possible but I see no reason to cut the flexibility unless there is an actual problem being solved. Of course if these decks exist for some other reason I'm unaware of I can't comment at all on whether 80 cards would matter, and again am in favor of keeping the flexibility there.
    The limit would be for Quick Match only. I should have made that even more explicit.

  4. #24
    Junior Member Creyos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Canada eh
    Posts
    19
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Gondorian View Post
    ...We think it's about time this situation changed, and would like to propose we reduce the maximum deck size for "Quick Match" to 80 cards + hero...What do you think?...
    My vote is Yes but out of curiosity : Is this poll simply to get a feel for the community response or will the poll results actually decide if this change gets implemented or not? (I'm still new here in the forums and this is the first poll I respond to)

    If indeed the poll shall determine the outcome; how will it be taken in consideration...?
    - By majority vote or a certain "YES" ratio? ex: 60/40, 70/30 ?
    - Minimum number of votes required?
    - Will the deadline be extended if the # of votes isn't satisfactory?

    I understand that this info might be on a need to know basis so no worries if it's privyed. Thanks

  5. #25
    DP Visionary Demnchi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    North Carolina, USA (GMT -4)
    Posts
    5,842
    Tournaments Joined
    8
    Tournaments Won
    1
    I'm not really against or for it. I don't find it necessary and believe the freedom to have as many cards as you want in your deck to be a plus for shadow era. If I recall correctly, the only reason we gave it a limit at all was because it was causing performance issues on mobile making it difficult or impossible to play because of the number of cards the game had to keep track of. This time, its the idea that having a bigger deck gives you an advantage, so I'll explore that by rambling as I do. :P

    What advantages does a larger deck actually provide? The main one is that they have more overall cards. They can't be milled as quickly and doesn't run out of cards as fast as a well tuned 40 card deck would. They also get to have more cards packed in for different situations, more tech cards if you will. This also means they will have cards that they don't need, which makes sacrificing easier and less painful. They also can have more redundancy built in to keep a similar consistency given they draw into enough different kinds of cards. Since they have so many different key cards they can use, its harder to knock them down with tech cards. Seek is also even more powerful the larger your deck.

    What disadvantages does a larger deck actually have? The main one is inconsistency. Even with large amounts of redundancy, they are still more likely to not get key cards like draw or removal. They are also less likely overall to draw useful cards, even if it does make sacrificing the useful stuff easy. This also means being put into top decking is a death sentence. You also give up having a specific and novel strategy revolving around a few cards oret of cards. It also prevents you from playing a combo deck without enough ways to seek your combo pieces.

    With what I've been able to tell, you do actually have an advantage if its built right in certain areas, but certainly not all of them. The main issue is that we don't have enough ways of stopping their advantage by discarding their hand before they draw a card that gets them rolling. That being said, simply adding more had discards would be problematic for minimal decks too. I think we may have a healthy pros and cons to leave it where it is.

    But for a moment, let's consider if going down to 80 max would effect the advantages/disadvantages. The main thing that would change is that they can't use their sheer volume as a means of winning quite as easily as before. Other than that though, the advantage/disadvantage list remains the same. It may be less redundancy overall, but it adds to their consistency to compensate for it. If locked at 80, the choice between massive redundancy and consistency just changes to a smaller overall number than it is now. It's possible that one new disadvantage would be enough to solve the perceived problem though, as it would allow more tuned decks to possibly survive that many cards. But this really only seems to be the case in really long and close matches. I could be wrong, but I would imagine that the vast majority of matches down see empty decks, even in matches where both players have the minimum number of cards.
    Was the Leader of Acolytes of A1

    A1's Dimensional Eyes in the Sky
    A1 Alliance: Evolution in Theory
    PFG3 Leader

    Was Shadow Era Community Manager

    Sota, The Switch Axe Monster Hunter

    "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."
    "Humans fight to secure peace as they envision it. The trouble is, everyone's vision is different." - Ringabel

  6. #26
    Community Manager SEF Mango's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The space in between your nightmares
    Posts
    969
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    I'm not sure I'm on board with this. I think it would be more interesting to have the minimum increased to be honest.

  7. #27
    Devoted Fan Gondorian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    England (GMT+0)
    Posts
    24,045
    Tournaments Joined
    1000
    Tournaments Won
    999
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Creyos View Post
    My vote is Yes but out of curiosity : Is this poll simply to get a feel for the community response or will the poll results actually decide if this change gets implemented or not?
    It's to give forum users an opportunity to give their input on something we're thinking of doing, rather than only hear from them after the fact. All input here will help us make a more informed final decision.

    I think the votes and replies so far have been useful information, so thanks to all those who contributed.

  8. #28
    Senior Member Kylt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    GMT+9
    Posts
    1,193
    Tournaments Joined
    7
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Do new board of directors still keep no errata policy?
    IGN: Kyltz

  9. #29
    Devoted Fan Gondorian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    England (GMT+0)
    Posts
    24,045
    Tournaments Joined
    1000
    Tournaments Won
    999
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Kylt View Post
    Do new board of directors still keep no errata policy?
    This is the wrong thread for that question. Feel free to post elsewhere.

    I'm hoping to keep this thread on topic.

  10. #30
    Senior Member Kolodi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Venice
    Posts
    131
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    My vote is "do both". Really. Why can't we have more game modes. You can leave points system common, but split qm into many sections. In one section max limit is 80, other could have min limit 80, one can be the same as it is today and so on. At the end if the day, the best way to know the answer what is best us simply to test it by huge amount of games played. Now, the approach to have many game modes in qm can be extended to accommodate many more specific or experimenting rules. So everyone can choose whatever game mode you like to play every single time, say you have some really fat deck and you don't want to be worry about facing 40 card well tuned aggro deck - go to 80 min limit mode, or you have 40 card deck and you don't want to be milled - go to 40 min 50 max game mode. This way we could finally have more balanced mutchups and overall more interesting games.
    Edit:
    For 80 min mode played could gain more points per win, so more people can be interesting in building bigger decks and don't be worry about having no chance to score as well as with slimmer decks
    Last edited by Kolodi; 09-07-2017 at 06:23 AM.
    Dragon Council
    IGN: SD KOLODI
    TG: @kolodim
    Shadow Dragons

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •