Is skill more important than collection size?

Volrak

ih8regin said:

A horizontal 4-match gives up to 7 chances to cascade into a 3 vertical match from above, provided there are gems in position, and also gives a decent chance to drop a 3-match in 7 gems of the top line, independently. Sooooo, I would argue about taking a vertical 3-match without seeing the whole board, and even then, chances are you get screwed either way.

I think K's example is exactly that: a skilled player aiming to maximise off-screen cascades would know when to look at the whole board, and for each possible move, count the 2-in-a-row setups (2 same-colour gems lined up next to holes after the move which would cascade if the same colour drops into that hole from off the board).  Whereas a less experienced player might make the best primary match only, or look for on-screen cascades only, and as a result will get less mana on average in their games.

Incidentally, yes, a horizontal match 4 has 7 possible 2-in-a-row setups, but a vertical match 3 has up to 10!

Volrak

Horadrim said:

Now that the element of RNG is included in the equation.... two players in platinum who have the same skills and same card collection... whoever is more lucky (e.g. draws combo cards early in the match, cascades for good amount of mana and able to cast combo cards early in the match, AND a bug-free match) wins the match.

Completely true, which is why I said "on average in the long run" in my earlier post.  The more games played, the more the impact of luck (a pure "noise" signal) tends to balance itself out, and the more the impact of skill (a consistent signal in the direction of improved outcomes) tends to add up and reinforce.

Kinesia

ih8regin said:

A horizontal 4-match gives up to 7 chances to cascade into a 3 vertical match from above, provided there are gems in position, and also gives a decent chance to drop a 3-match in 7 gems of the top line, independently. Sooooo, I would argue about taking a vertical 3-match without seeing the whole board, and even then, chances are you get screwed either way.

Yes, totally depends on the board! I had a particular situation in my head. But beginners usually go for the raw numbers they can see, that's all I was really trying to say.

Edit: Oops, I was Volraked, I should've read to the end before worrying about replying myself!

Gormhaus

I am really liking this discussion. This is a great back and forth and the insights on both sides is amazing. 

Thanks!

CheeksMagunda

If we were talking paper Magic, I'd be far more inclined to agree that skill is vastly superior to collection. Unfortunately in this instance though, if the gap in collection strength is too great, there's just no way to consistently overcome it. I can only reference my own observations but I can confidently say I know how to manipulate a board in games like this; i know how to combo, how to fetch, even how set myself up for the right "lucky break" if it comes. However, once i went from Gold to Platinum, my win rate sank noticeably. Greg is a garbage AI who doesn't prioritize anything properly, but he doesn't need to when he's dropping bombs left and right in the form of Urza, KI (in a properly prepared deck), etc.

To those bragging about their pauper prowess in events, I can only assume we're talking about Standard events. I don't believe for a moment that decks like that win "90+% of the time" in Legacy formats, and given that most of the events seem to be trending toward the latter right now, that's what matters.

TL;DR: Small difference in collection loses to skill, large difference gives the win to collection. 

Horadrim

CheeksMagunda said:

Small difference in collection loses to skill, large difference gives the win to collection. 

In the end, when two players have both collected all the cards, and assuming these two players have equal skills, then the only element that separates them is luck. E.g. Legacy Event has two players who have all the cards at their disposal, and have the same skills (board control, hand priority, gem matching). Player A makes early cascades, have full control of the board, about to deal the final blow to AI... then his match freezes (oh what horror!!!! and curses AI for cheating him of a match he should have won, steps out of the house and have a stroll in a nearby park internalizing if he should continue playing the game he loves or quit.... but he doesn't have the skill to quit because he values his cards so much). Player B is playing Koth... luckily has drawn three bedevils as first 3 cards. Cascaded first turn ready to cast bedevils. Deactivated them to use flash. AI cascaded with Omni-HUF-Deploy first turn bringing down an army of Rhonas/Decimator/Samut. Player B LOLs and killed AI's army. Player B then drew mirror march. AI drew Omni and cascaded again bringing down Omni... but AI hand is empty. Player B drew Zacama then cascaded bringing down mirror march then Zacama... mirror march/Zacama combo went crazy it seems the combo won't stop....for the win!!!! Player B is so satisfied he defeated an Omni/HUF/Deploy combo with lucky bedevils. Player B continues to enjoy the game.... until he himself encounters 9-tails Mowu infinite buff and curses Naruto for copyright infringement.

Aeroplane

 I'll have to go with collection first as there are 3-5 cards in each set that are usually MPs and Mythics that separate great decks and good decks. That's why many people complain about the great cards as they don't take much skill for your hand to go off(BSZ was the most recent culprit) 

There is some skill in deck building but a little research or getting the hang of balancing your decks doesn't take much practice.

Gem matching is pretty straight forward if you can spot cascades or take away good matches from greg.


The game is a touch more balanced now allowing Greg more time to get under people's skin and not allowing us to mana bloom or loop anymore in Standard.

JohnnyXII

Mburn7 said:

JohnnyXII said:

As long as there are net decks, skill has nothing to do with it.

I disagree very much with this.  My old Drowner deck had a 99% win rate for me but would be significantly worse for someone else who didn't know how to play it.  I've seen a lot of decks posted by my coalition mates that I cannot win with at all but give them turn 2 wins consistently.  Knowing how to properly play a deck is huge, even if the deckbuilding skill can be copiedl

Really because pretty much all legacy events are confirming what i said. Theres no skill involved when greg goes infinite on turn two with bsz, omni, whirl and days undoing, and let's not even mention the failed double LPS checks.

Mburn7

JohnnyXII said:

Mburn7 said:

JohnnyXII said:

As long as there are net decks, skill has nothing to do with it.

I disagree very much with this.  My old Drowner deck had a 99% win rate for me but would be significantly worse for someone else who didn't know how to play it.  I've seen a lot of decks posted by my coalition mates that I cannot win with at all but give them turn 2 wins consistently.  Knowing how to properly play a deck is huge, even if the deckbuilding skill can be copiedl

Really because pretty much all legacy events are confirming what i said. Theres no skill involved when greg goes infinite on turn two with bsz, omni, whirl and days undoing, and let's not even mention the failed double LPS checks.

I faced a couple Beacon Bolt loop decks in Hour of Devastation this weekend that I know for a fact will win consistently turn 2-4 when piloted by a competent player that did absolutely nothing and lost in 20 turns.

Greg is capable of getting lucky sometimes when his hand is ordered perfectly and he gets a massive cascade, but that doesn't mean it doesn't take skill to pilot a powerful deck consistently.  A bunch of monkeys can randomly type out a Shakespeare play, it doesn't make Shakespeare less skilled at writing plays.

jtwood

Mburn7 said:

JohnnyXII said:

Mburn7 said:

JohnnyXII said:

As long as there are net decks, skill has nothing to do with it.

I disagree very much with this.  My old Drowner deck had a 99% win rate for me but would be significantly worse for someone else who didn't know how to play it.  I've seen a lot of decks posted by my coalition mates that I cannot win with at all but give them turn 2 wins consistently.  Knowing how to properly play a deck is huge, even if the deckbuilding skill can be copiedl

Really because pretty much all legacy events are confirming what i said. Theres no skill involved when greg goes infinite on turn two with bsz, omni, whirl and days undoing, and let's not even mention the failed double LPS checks.

I faced a couple Beacon Bolt loop decks in Hour of Devastation this weekend that I know for a fact will win consistently turn 2-4 when piloted by a competent player that did absolutely nothing and lost in 20 turns.

Greg is capable of getting lucky sometimes when his hand is ordered perfectly and he gets a massive cascade, but that doesn't mean it doesn't take skill to pilot a powerful deck consistently.  A bunch of monkeys can randomly type out a Shakespeare play, it doesn't make Shakespeare less skilled at writing plays.

I have a decent Legacy collection, but I can't drop insane combos like Johnny listed above. Even then, I only had one loss. And that loss? A Standard-legal Rhonas deck.

Pantagruel

If I gave my collection to a noob, they'd absolutely crush any other noobs starting from scratch. The OmniHulk deck is built for them, they don't need any help learning how to pilot it.

Ampersand

Can some decks crush the opposition on auto-pilot? Sure.

Can most decks do that? No.

Some of the best, most effective decks require understanding when to make key decisions and when not to - ie how to play given the board state. And when I say "best, most effective" I mean at all tiers - pauper, bronze, silver, gold, platinum.

I think this isn't a zero-sum binary. IMO collection and skill both matter significantly.

Pantagruel

A player who makes the incorrect choice over whether to play a Razia or an Urza on their turn will win far more games than a player who makes the correct choice over whether to play a Gleaming Overseer or an Ugin's Conjurant.

madwren

Pantagruel said:

A player who makes the incorrect choice over whether to play a Razia or an Urza on their turn will win far more games than a player who makes the correct choice over whether to play a Gleaming Overseer or an Ugin's Conjurant.

This is very true. 

I think that there are some cards whose power level is so insane that you can just throw them into a deck and auto-win regardless of your skill level. Similarly, there are some alpha-level decks that we all know--OmniHulk, HUFDeploy, KioraWaterveil, ZenithBolt, yadda yadda--that are very hard to fail with unless you grossly mismanage them. Which, of course, is possible. 

It should be acknowledged that having the skill to identify which cards to use is important, and that a new person who was handed a full collection would have a high learning curve figuring out what decks and planeswalkers to use. 

Pantagruel

madwren said:

It should be acknowledged that having the skill to identify which cards to use is important, and that a new person who was handed a full collection would have a high learning curve figuring out what decks and planeswalkers to use.

This is true to some extent, although, netdecking is a thing that exists, and a noob with a full collection who loses to an OmniHulk deck will be able to use the Battle Log to build that deck themselves for the future.

FindingHeart8

I guess when I consider the actual utilization of skill, I'll admit I'm somewhat biased.

I consider in-depth strategy games or a semi-complex mtg board game match the grounds for which skill actually becomes a factor.  A point where thought process beyond a reflexive, reactionary-response is implemented.

I'll admit, one of the traits that allured me to this game was the initial steep learning curve and the substantial disadvantage new players have.  Back when quick battle was a thing...even at a rookie tier I found myself facing decks that half or more rare/mythics.  I won some matches, but some were just flat-out impossible, because my card base was not strong enough.

Without the right cards, this game can indeed have a strong skill component as a prerequisite to winning.  However, with a decent card base, I now feel like I can autopilot my way through 99% of my matches, I hardly even look at my phone while playing.

I don't mind cards making the game easier, because that's how natural progression works in most games, and this game is time-consuming enough as is.  However, the point remains that the heaviest determinate of power in this game is what is in your collection.

Player A, without good cards, can still possibly defeat Player B (has good cards) if Player A tries hard and is lucky.  But Player B often does not need to try hard, nor be reliant on luck, to defeat player A.