I too won mortis the day before he was available as challenge. He is an ok card, has its strength has its weaknesses like any card. There is no card you cannot disable with at most 2 lucky attacks of a matching counter card.
i would have given it a bit better score, but more 2000 points, grey screen, so many other bugs its of a 1/5.
When a game is bug free we can start considering quality. But with bugs its so fundamental flawed, its like rating a car that doesn't drive...
stop complaining about the renewing challenge. Its good. Newbies get enticed to train against the bot, and they quickly get the concept of switch and intercept!
(forgot to say, I'm just to lazy often to really use a coin, it isn't just like a little playing to relax... but the game is better when really using a coin)
It makes people go crazy, like they try so hard to notice a pattern in you, they just cannot find.
The main skill that is left, is to notice patterns, like many people wont reintercept after a unsucessful intercept, or hardly everybody expects me to change when I am already in a favorite position (so to even improve the position)... or whatever.
At the end its really in many case just look. Why do most people I play against have ratios like 2:1. because of the newbs. Many people come, play a few losses and go to never be seen again.
BTW I think I could improve when playing less when I''m really tired and doing really stupid things. But really who the f* cares about the ratio at all? It says nothing about your skill.
(Also noticed on some daytimes you get more likely a newb to play against than on another other time, so ratio might also reflect on what time of the day you play)
And even if the game is in a good deal about random. Does it make it bad because of this?
Actually I do play the best games when flipping a coin on many occasions (except situations were one decission is really stupid, like intercepting when the other has only 1 card left).
About "skill"; many, many, many situations look like this: Okay I got ashi in near, the say ubuntu. Now if I'd be a newbie 99% likely I'd just use the strongest attack, that makes me very predictable. You can easily beat newbs, because they are really very predictable and hardly switch at all. Now when I play against a pro. I can expect he switches out, but when he expects me to intercept he can just wait it out, so I can attack again, when he thinks that I think that he thinks he is gonna wait because he thinks that I think I gonna attack eitherway, he might change eitherway. Its just random.
hellraiser3, also ratios mean shit. To some degree they only tell on how picky you are who you are playing against. I play against everybody, even highlevel players who are pretty unpredictable. This of course worsens my ratio against trying hard to play against newbs only. Do I care? No.
BBKoe, if disconnects wouldn't count as loss, people (actually stupid little kids) would just plug out their network cable when losing.
RamboBatman 94,56% of all numbers are drawn out of thin air. So as long you didn't actually make a tally sheet, or have any exacter definition of when a game was desided by luck instead of skill. Your numbers aren't any better than of anybody else, just because you make a longer story to draw them out of thin air.
Consider this game would be played by a professinal this game hardly has any skills at all.
Say you play against a professional, he will likely not predictable what he does (attack/intercept/switch), so actually no matter what you do, it is likely to be right or wrong. So you are unpredictable too...
Its like the classic paper/stone/scissor game. Thinking about playing it against a "professional", you have exactly the same chances of win/lose. Sometimes however humans are imperfect, and you can win more often if you can discover patterns in their behaviour. As long the other doesnt discver the pattern in you, because you think you discovered his pattern, the game is still winnable.