Close

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20
  1. #1
    Senior Member He-Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    1,134
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    SE Strategy--Race vs Attrition, Control Decks, and Inevitability

    Introduction
    As a follow up to the Who’s the Beatdown thread, and NinjaDucky’s excellent comment about inevitibality, I figured I'd also do a write-up on this subject. As not everyone in this community speaks MtG, I have translate it to SE. It is based on articles originally written for MtG, by Jeff Cunningham and Ben Rubin, so credits go to them for initially summarizing the conceptual ideas herein, and any direct quotes come from these articles.

    Race versus Attrition
    In MtG, generally two types of gameplay can be recognized. The first is the race, where you try to achieve your win condition (a combo, a fatty, quick massive damage, or something else that will win you the game) before your opponent does. The second is a “duel of attrition”. Here, players trade threats and counters (e.g., allies and ally removal) until one deck runs out of steam from which point the other player has an easy road to the finish line. Both types of play also occur in SE, but the current rules (such as first strike for all allies, and the ability to decide which ally to attack) and cards strongly skew the game towards the race type of gameplay, which is why the matches are relatively quick, and not drawn out too long.

    Control Decks
    Control decks focus on the other type of gameplay, attrition. They are built to draw out the early and mid games, and come up with a win condition in the mid to late game. At this point, race decks have usually already run out of steam.
    Characteristics of control decks are:
    (1) Removing threats at a reduced cost compared to the opponent's investment. This means, (a) spending less resources to nullify a card than your opponent spent to play that card (e.g., playing Crippling Blow on a Brutal Minotaur), or, (b) spending less cards to remove a larger number of your opponent’s cards (e.g., Lightning Strike on 2 Puwens).
    (2) Not playing early threats. All early plays are geared towards countering any threats of the opponent. This in turn creates what is called “virtual card advantage”, as the opponent will be left with a bunch of useless cards in his/her hand. (Say, if he/she has a Flaming Arrow, but you do not play any allies, that is a dead card for him/her.)
    (3) Focused on disrupting synergies. (E.g., if you destroy the allies on the board, your opponent cannot do anything with his/her Life Infusion.) This is often more a skill of the pilot than a charachteristic of the stack of cards.
    (4) Dragging out the game. This is the whole point of a control deck. They answer anything you throw at them, until you are out of rocks. Than they throw a whole mountain all at once.
    The logic behind characteristics 1 and 2 is explained in an earlier thread.

    Control decks are generally more complicated to build and require a lot of experience and skill to successfully pilot, which is why many advanced players like them so much. As of yet, the only thing in SE that we could call control decks are the Killtrend's Zaladar, and other versions that aim to mill the opponent, and some of the priest decks. It is my hope that more control decks will show up in SE in the future.

    Inevitability
    “Inevitability is the strategic consideration that, all things being equal, one deck will beat another given enough time.” This situation may have arisen because of a specific situation on the board, it may due to specific cards in a player’s deck or hand, or it may be an intrinsic aspect of the match up between two heroes. In other words, if you do not have inevitability, you will lose the game if you do not take action. Thus, you are on a clock to kill your opponent. It follows from this, that whoever does not have inevitability, inevitably has to play the beatdown.

    Which deck has inevitability can be looked at, and may change, at various points during the game:

    (1) During deck building. If you are playing an aggro/beatdown-style hero and deck, certain cards are not a good fit for such a deck. This is why I for instance do not like to run a card like Aeon in a Boris or Amber deck. Aeon is a control-style card, while the rest of the deck is geared towards aggro. King’s Pride is also an interesting card in this respect. It has all the style of an “inevitability card”. It could be included in an aggro-style warrior deck, but, imho, the only right time to play KP is when it wins you the game that turn or the next. Otherwise, at that casting cost, you are better off playing 2 allies.

    (2) At the start of the game. As a rule of thumb, you could state that the more aggressive a deck is (as predicted by the hero), the less its chance of having inevitability. This is because aggro decks usually pack a lot of quick, low-cost cards that can deal a lot of damage early, but they tend to run out of gas mid to late game.

    (3) After seeing your opening hand and the first few turns. This is the point of the game where initial board control is established, and the early situation on the board strongly affects inevitability in SE.

    (4) Mid to late game. Here several factors have to be taken into consideration: (a) life total (the hero with high life will take risks and race the one with low life), (b) cards and resources available (card advantage really starts to weigh at this point in the game), (c) “degree of trump” (will the card you are waiting to draw/play just further your advantage, or will it immediately win you the game--if the latter is the case, you play far more controlling than when the former is the case), and (d) risk (what is the chance racing your opponent will actually work out for you?).

    Conclusion
    Observant readers probably already figured out that with the current limited card pool and relatively simple metagame, not having inevitability, and playing the beatdown, is generally a consequence of choices made during deck building, and of whether you are going first or second. This is a major difference from the situation in (far further developed) MtG, where deck building also plays a major role, but where board and hand situations often arise that strongly affect inevitability. Hopefully, with further development and the release of many more cards, similar layers of strategy will be (further) added to SE in the nearby future.

    Again,hope this has been insightful, and please leave comments and ask questions if you have any!
    Last edited by He-Man; 08-20-2011 at 03:14 PM.
    proud former member of A1 Alliance
    overview of all
    my strategy articles

  2. #2
    Senior Member CodeDomination's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,947
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    I approve of this thread.

  3. #3
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,866
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Blog Entries
    7
    I think this thread is going to become way more appropriate as time goes on and the card base builds... Nice to get it out here early, though I'd take it with a pinch of salt for the time being.

    :Edit:
    Just realised you pretty much said that at the end.... So much for post skimming... HA, I just did an AnAdolt.

  4. #4
    DP Visionary Padawan Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Somewhere in Africa
    Posts
    3,422
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    With 1.27 coming we will see less control decks, not more.
    Grand Watchman of the Ancient Blue Citadel
    Warriors of the Blue Phoenix
    Greatness, Reborn.

    Don't just witness the greatness;
    Stride with us.


    To join the demonstrably greatest guild in the history of Shadow Era - click here

  5. #5
    Regionals Runner Up kentuequi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Around my belly button.
    Posts
    6,668
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Hmm... Killtrend's Zaladar's aim isn't to mill the opponent...
    "Rastas don't believe in violence... Rastas don't believe... Rastas know." -Bob Marley-

    Winner of the Multi-Post Streak Challenge
    *⁷ᵔᵕᵔ∞*゜゚⁰ᵒ☉⋆.ᵢᵢᵢ₇.。・'⋋ⓚⓔⓝⓣⓤⓔⓠⓤⓘ⋌'・。.₇₇₇.⋆☉ᵒ⁰゜゚*∞ᵔᵕᵔ⁷*
    ⊰☠ ℑcℯ ℰℒℱ ☠⊱

  6. #6
    Senior Member arebelspy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2,181
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Blog Entries
    3
    great article, once again!

    Quote Originally Posted by Padawan Pete View Post
    With 1.27 coming we will see less control decks, not more.
    agree. with low cost allies and a lot stronger allies, but no draw or other mechanics encouraging a longer game, it becomes a lot more aggro.

  7. #7
    Senior Member arebelspy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2,181
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Kentuequi View Post
    Hmm... Killtrend's Zaladar's aim isn't to mill the opponent...
    oh yeah, i didn't notice that, that's way wrong.

    the control decks we have are priest decks, like zhanna mist, who go for the long game stall w/ healing and tidal wave to control the board and wizets to draw, and then win a long match after wiping the board (often multiple times) and finally playing their own guys.

  8. #8
    Senior Member He-Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    1,134
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Padawan Pete View Post
    With 1.27 coming we will see less control decks, not more.
    I think so too.
    And it makes me a little sad...
    proud former member of A1 Alliance
    overview of all
    my strategy articles

  9. #9
    Senior Member He-Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    1,134
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Kentuequi View Post
    Hmm... Killtrend's Zaladar's aim isn't to mill the opponent...
    That is not what I meant, but I see my writing was not too clear there. I'll add a stop to the sentence. I meant his is a controlerish deck, and from what I remember there are other, non-Killtrend decks that also control and specifically aim to mill. My memory may be playing me tricks though...
    proud former member of A1 Alliance
    overview of all
    my strategy articles

  10. #10
    Senior Member He-Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    1,134
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by MattOG View Post
    I think this thread is going to become way more appropriate as time goes on and the card base builds... Nice to get it out here early, though I'd take it with a pinch of salt for the time being.

    :Edit:
    Just realised you pretty much said that at the end.... So much for post skimming... HA, I just did an AnAdolt.
    Congrats for doing AnAdolt.

    Edit: You did AN Andolt... So much for post skimming...

    On a more serious note--yes, as I point out at the end, this article is getting ahead of things. I mostly wrote it because in my other thread NinjaDucky referred to the MtG piece, and since this is SE and not MtG, a port may be nice for people not versed in MtG. Other than that, I hope it will provide some nice theoretical background for people to work with.

    With an increasing card pool, this article should become more practically relevant. For now however, Wulven seems to skew development strongly to an aggro-only environment. I hope this shows that developing semi-defensive cards is not very useful as long as playing a real control deck is not really a viable option...
    proud former member of A1 Alliance
    overview of all
    my strategy articles

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
  •