I understand your attack value only determines the "probability" of winning a battle, but should a low power character with minimal pillz really be able to win against a higher power character with more pillz played? and yes i understand that there are bonuses and abilties that can reasonably lead to this result and thats okay, but when there are no bonuses or abilities a 40 attack should beat a 10 consistently, hell all the time. it doesnt though and thats retarded. are people cheating somehow? what gives?
It's ok, I still manage to scrape some wins to get my efficiency above 59%.
What sucks more though, is people that takes 4 minutes to move during tournaments!
I hope in the near future, they can average how fast people takes turns. A lot of programming I know, but very handy during tournaments.
Well there is definately a formula to how strong a card is besides the attack and power structures that we know about because it seems the java clients initialize deck feature accurately tells you who is the strongest in your deck.
I have chosen my deck this way to see some apparently wimpy cards.
Like Level 1 copper would always come up. But spec wise at lvl he sucks. The computer knew things about this card that I didn't/ Stuff like he always seems to defy the math.
I don't think it's the computer's math that is wrong -- but rather it's our (the players) concept of how the math is calculated that is a bit ajar. I think this is on purpose to keep that "random" aspect in place.
To me it's more annoying then fun. I collect the cards and set my strategy. I don't want to factor in "and if the system feels like helping" into my strategy.