New Player: Liked the Game but now quitting, final feedback


It seems to me you’ve decided already what the game is, and if that’s what it is to you, then that’s what it is. For myself, there are so many layers of depth in this game that have yet to be explored, and I look forward to the day that they are. But like all games, first you need to learn the ropes to understand the nuances of expert play, the reasoning and the real choices you have to make. The thing about Duelyst is that you have such a short amount of time to consider your plays that they have to be semi-automated, and most of your skills will be in using that allotted time to consider the macro state of the game and deliberate over the choices you need to make to further your game plan in the micro state. You cannot possibly consider everything, so you take with you your bag of experience and apply that knowledge that you’ve built up over your games, depend on it, and make only the choices that are new. Once you’ve decided on a play, reconsider that play in reverse, find holes until your rope is near burnt and finally effect every movement with conviction, knowing full well you’re about to be proven wrong.

I consider myself an expert player, and I make mistakes. Everyone does. Every turn, there are so many options to consider, not just for the current turn, but the next turn, and the turn after that. The more you know about the game, the deeper it gets. The more you know, the more choices you have, and the more difficult each turn gets. I am unashamed of my mistakes, knowing that they will make me a better player, and I learn something every game, whether it’s due to my plays or my opponent’s.

But if you understand the game to be just mechanical, that there is always an ideal play and an ideal turn, then perhaps you are far ahead of me, but I do not see it like that. It requires a serious level of depth of knowledge in the game to claim that.

Understand that you cannot build a house without first building its foundation, and while all foundations are similar, no home is truly alike. Yes, every house has walls and a roof; they’re built and set up by the rules of physics and the laws and bylaws of your town, but the land determines the nuances of the build, and the architect makes the stylized changes that set everything apart. You are that architect, and I see the playing of every game as the building of your house. The bylaws of your town, you set up in deck construction.

There are depths of knowledge to both, and there are friends here that will help you along. I too can assist, but my services are paid, and you would not like me then. Add some folks here, play with them, and you’ll find eventually that your growth will be far above what you could do on your own.

Or don’t. But you’re still here, so you still have hope. Nurture it, and you may yet be surprised.


Yes, that is how tempo lists work. You could try combo Starhorn.



Deck building does matter in Duelyst but if you can’t make use of core mechanics you’re going to lose. Positioning matters in this game. You can’t play a minion in the middle of the action and hope for the best.

What would you do in EDH if a Marath player had an Aura Shards on board? Play a bunch of enchantments and complain when they destroy everything you played?

That’s what you’re doing in Duelyst. You’re putting minion in places where they immediately die and then complaining that it’s too easy for opponents to answer your stuff.

“But a player putting Aura Shards in their deck is all about deck building.”

Yes. But whether you play into it or not is a test of how well a you understand game mechanics. If you target multiple permanents of mine with Decimate than I’m going to try and fizzle the spell. Understanding and utilizing a games core mechanics results in more engaging game play.

It absolutely possible. The only thing stopping you at this point is your refusal to learn.

And of course support are the best thing in the game. They are the best thing in every card game. Craterhoof Behemoth and Delver of Secrets aren’t what win the game it’s the ridiculous ramp and disruption (respectively) that win the games. The tempo that support cards provide are the reasons good decks do well.

What do you want out of this game? Your desire here is vague to me.

I play EDH because I like highlander lists and being able to build around a specific card. I also like competition and Magic’s game play general. EDH provides those things. Duelyst also provides these things.

Well for me it’s because I’m held accountable for what I do the entire game. EDH doesn’t do this. A mistake here or there doesn’t have a huge impact. You can frequently make mistakes and go unpunished. Which is great if one wants to pretend they’re flawless. However, the general inability to punish my opponents is upsetting. They can keep making the wrong plays and there is very little I can do to capitalize on that outside of politics.

Making a mistake in Duelyst isn’t necessarily game breaking. It can be punished heavily, but that works both ways. I like that interaction. Be able to make mistakes and win even after some capitalizes on that mistake because the opponent makes I mistake later down the line is fantastic. I like that back and forth in gameplay.

I will gladly play a game that punishes me for doing something wrong if it also rewards me for doing something right.


No. If a Marath player plays Aura Shards, I have 3 options. Kill it, ignore it, or protect it. As threatening as Aura Shards is, it might be keeping a lockdown player in check more efficiently than what I have at my disposal, so I’d actually keep it alive until that player is no longer a threat.

Where did I complain about that? Show me.

Not really. Game mechanics is stuff like the stack resolving in reverse order, or that you can remove a creature on trigger (relevant for things like Deadeye Navigator). That GW creature decks tend to want to run Aura Shards is just card knowledge gained through experience.

Yeah, that’s what decks that run blue do. That’s not the same as this game though. Not even close.

I disagree. In a Marath deck, you first build in your win combos, then you bring in support cards to carry the combo. But the main point of the deck is the combo, not the support cards. In this game, damn near everything seems like a combo piece of some kind, which is why the support cards are so overvalued.

A game state with lots of different ways to win, given a board state, lots of different ways to react (or not) to my opponent’s strategy, high emphasis on deck synergy and overall things to build toward in a game without it purely being a contest of “who most efficiently removes threats”.

That makes no sense. If someone wants to punish you, they can respond, on your turn, with a universal response card to whatever you did that they don’t like.

Que? You’re talking about a game in which you can flash in a card, on your opponents turn, to exile all their attacking creatures, leaving you with a 5/4 flier. Counterspell, vindicate, the list goes on. I defy you to find me ANY game easier to kill something of your opponent’s that you want dead. I mean hell, just the ability to act on your opponent’s turn AT ALL makes this ridiculously easy.

How do you even know you’ve done something right? So far as I’ve seen it, there are two board states in this game. States you can answer, in which case you’re living, and states you can’t answer, in which case someone is probably going to watch and be like “Well if you had moved one space to the left on turn 4…”. In other words, there’s “wrong” and there’s “you’re not dead yet, but wait a few turns”. I couldn’t even tell you what “right” looks like, or if such a thing exists.

Whoa, whoa, hold on just a minute. “I” didn’t decide. I am responding to how I’m being “set straight” in this very thread. Read back and see for yourself if you don’t believe me.

Me: “The pacing is ridiculously fast and everything feels like a combo piece”

Person: “That’s because you’re not responding to initial threats efficient enough because your mechanics are all wrong.”

Me: “Man so many of the threats in this game are so niche, and require niche answers that it’s hard to even tell what my opponent is playing, what I should mulligan and what I should play around.”

Person: “Yeah that’s just because you don’t understand the mechanics.”

etc. If every one of my observations is re-framed through the lens of my understanding (or lack, usually) of game mechanics, then how can you be surprised when I finally say, “OK fine, clearly this game is all about mechanics, because it’s all anyone seems to bring up!”

I’m not even talking about expert play, I’m takling about making a functional deck and carrying a strategy from A->B.

The game is being explained to me as if it were just mechanical.

People who do video reviews on my games, review my games as if there’s an ideal play and an ideal turn. Their description of the game as if that’s the case is what’s turning me off of the game, because I have plenty of games I can play which center around doing a sequence of “correct” actions for a “victory result”.

Yes, I already know how this process works in how I tune my EDH decks. In Magic it’s way different though, as your “foundation” is your mana base, your ramp package, your support cards to deal with strategies that counter your own, etc. In this game, the “foundation” (again, as is being explained to me) is purely mechanical.

Growth towards what? Am I learning to build better decks, or am I learning to do better at “turn based Dark Souls?” If the former, then that’s great! This game has potential for me. But if everything simply boils down to mechanics (again, as people are phrasing the discussion) then I’ll just go raid on WoW or something, where i can spend all my time stressing about getting minutia right.

How do you know when you play “correctly”? How do you know you’ve executed your deck’s wincon due to smart plays, or your opponent simply lacking an answer?

It sounds like people like this game because it couples the mechanical / minutia management discipline of a figher or a MOBA with a card game. That’s not illegitimate, as this was bound to happen given the rise in esport popularity. But it does detract from what I like about card games as heirs to tabletops.


You kinda remind me of a guy who once made a topic on a starcraft forum regarding how that game wasn’t really strategic for him because he just got stomped every game. This guy had an APM of 29 which is less than a quarter of the bare minimum you needed just to get your basic tasks done during the game. It’s no wonder you get stomped when your opponent build twice as many units in the same time. Strategy alone won’t cut it without the mechanics to back it up.

This game has a lot of really good cards and card combinations, tons of options to build really interesting decks that can have plenty of success when played right. I have 46 different decks at this point, from aggro over midrange to heavy control and combo, the options are vast. But obviously, no matter how good your decks strategy and synergy is, no matter what cards you have, if you pilot the deck badly you won’t stand a chance with it. If your opponent hits 5 minions + your general everytime they play a warbeast/immolation then your deck doesn’t matter in the slightest. I’d say this game has what you are looking for in a card game, but it also requires some skill in other regions outside of deckbuilding. If aquiring these skills is too much of a bother for you then you should look else where. If you are willing to learn them then you might end up enjoying this game once your done getting your basics right.

And no it’s not about making ideal plays all the time, nobody can do that, this game is far too complex for that. But if your plays are a complete mess most of the time then you get appropriate results.

It’s also not about niche threats requiring niche answers. Any kind of dispel, hardremoval or displacement effect can be used as a fairly general answer to a lot of things. Sure there are some limitations for each one but with some understanding of the game this isn’t much of a problem.


A lot of quoting, but I did it both for reader and myself of the situation.

I understand your frustration, and there is some legitimate merit of your issues (in my view). After watching the video replay, I also understand the other comments, but where you frustration may be coming from.

If you’re willing, I’d love to work with you on this. I think I see what you are looking for in this game, and I think we could get you in that direction.


I can’t answer the whole thread, but I can answer this one.

You don’t know for a single game (unless you check the replay)
But if you play a hundred games and win 70 of em than you have beaten the odds by 30 wins.
That was done by playing smart or at least with more skill than your opponent.


I’ll try to explain some ideas the best I can, Logos.

  • The more competitive a game is, the less likely you are, even at high levels to hold a high win percentage. Bad runs happens, bad beats happen, misevaluating meta happens, misevaluating the efficacy of certain game elements happens. Games like these solely award persistance and methology through marginal insights (IE, when and how to replace every turn, moving your General as often as possible, learning to bodyblock with units etcetc.) The deterministic elements of the game create a great disparity in skill, but when against someone of a similar skill, it can feel haphazard if you don’t have your own methodology to work on.

  • The “Right Play” is the loose idea, of using the information available to you, making the play most likely to result in you coming out ahead. You can make the correct plays, and still get blown out, but it’s usually less likely or severe, because you made the best plays. This means very many different things at different levels- but the idea is a holdover from the more spectator oriented side of Magic: The Gathering.

  • You really can’t afford to stew on losses. We all get salty, but the more one tries to rationalize loss, the more one often tries to rationalize that the problem isn’t with their play, and the more one is subject to treating the game with a fatalistic approach. CCGs reward players who learn to “Fail Faster” (seeing victory as a desirable result, but not an expected one- using cumulative failure to seek insight about how to progress.)


Mistakes are punished very harshly in Duolist. There is no question about that.

Duolist is as pure a race to 0 health as any other CCG. There isn’t much room for “detours” and “vacations” in the Duolist race. The race moves forward with the girl who’s behind trying to call for brief halts, if she even realizes that she’s behind at all. “Stabilizing” is not really a consistent thing in Duolist as it is in, say, Hearthstone. There are just too many ways to blow your “stabilizing” to smithereens. Against competent opponents, “timeouts” tends to be hard to come by and brief and loss of initiative can snowball very quickly.

Unless the race has already snowballed out of control, you are almost always walking the razor’s edge where even a small mistake can be fatal. There are certainly a ton of nuances to your “racing chops” in Duolist. However, Duolist is still primarily a race with few halts. I think a lot of players just can’t get past that. Almost everything in Duolist is focused on the core mechanics of “the race.” It’s a knife fight to the death.

The strategies in Duolist are knife fight strategies where you maneuver your the knife into your opponent’s breast a split second before she maneuvers hers in yours, not standoff war strategies where you each lay siege to the other’s castle. It can be a “fit” problem for you if you prefer building up and tearing down castles.

Now, I don’t claim to be a top Duolist god. I’ve always been a hit-s-and-chill player who’ve played very sparingly (real life and stuff, you know), so I’m almost always at a huge experience disadvantage (see experience disadvantage pic below =S), especially against god-tier opponents. There are Duolist gods who play more games in one month than I do in total, but maybe that gives me a bit of an advantage in offering you some tips which aren’t too “advanced” to understand (see Chinese proverb below).

Now, cards of course do make a difference in Duolist (see P2W vs. F2P below), but your racing chops tend to offer you a bigger advantage than your cards do through most of the ranks. Most of your sense of progress in Duolist will come from acquiring better racing chops rather than from acquiring better cards and decks. It can be a “fit” problem for you if you prefer “card progress” or “deck progress” over “you progress.”

Always Less Experienced =S

“Two leaps per chasm is fatal.” --Chinese Proveb

P2W 193 of 211 (91.5%)

F2P 160 of 191 (83.8%)

So, let’s get to the tips part. I really only have a couple of pointers for you.

First of all, you need to realize that Duolist is a race, a knife fight of a race. The race goes mostly one way with few halts available along the way. When you are ahead, you want to push hard for the end; when you are behind, you want to make use of the few halts available to you. Many victories are won when you lose the value war and win the race. Break out of the castle and siege mindset. “Stabilizing” doesn’t work well here against competent opponents because pushing when you are ahead is just too effective. This means that judging the race is crucial. What is the chance of your being currently behind or ahead?

Take this, for example:

I came back to win this one despite my opponent chugging all that by 4-mana, because she got scared and backed her general off trying to finish me with minions. This is a textbook example of not knowing when you are ahead. Yes, Songhai can chuck a lot of burst, but in Duolist walking the razor’s edge is par for course. You have to be able to make a lot of good margin calls on how likely you are ahead or behind, either to accelerate or to decelerate toward the end.

When you are watching your own replays, pay close attention to moments where you may have misjudged the race. This may be the hardest part of the game to master.

Secondly, initiative has exaggerated importance in Duolist, so learn to recognize it as a resource to acquire and not to spend it frivolously on “value.”

Initiative is important in most CCGs in that it lets you decide how trades happen so you can make good ones. In Duolist, it’s even more important because it also gives you control over accelerating/decelerating toward the end of the race, which is crucial in determining the outcomes of many matches, because swings are common in Duolist, so being able to choose when to engage or disengage makes a huge difference in whether the game ends on a high note for you.

The most basic example is how centrally your general is positioned, on both axes. Can you move back or up or down to disengage from some of the enemy assets? How much does doing so limit your options afterward? A lot of the time you cannot stop an opponent from making an attack they want to make or grabbing an orb they want to grab, but sometimes you can make it so she has to put herself out of position to do what she wants to do.

It’s a knife fight. Having assets out of position to contribute to the race right away can be very costly, because the chance of “later” mattering at all is often not that good in a race game. When you watch replays, pay attention to what each piece can and cannot choose to attack and how the game plays out differently because of it. It’s one thing to have the “correct” positioning taught to you, quite another to figure out what initiative the position gives you and why those options allow you to dictate the flow of the race better than the alternatives.


Wow there are a lot of replies I missed while I was asleep. To start, again, I appreciate the kindness and offers to help me out that I’m getting, and the general tips. I’m doing my best to articulate my concerns, and avoid being abrasive so that hopefully the feeling is mutual there. I mean it, you’re all good people.

Now for the replies:

This is actually an interesting analogy for the conversation. I’m going to try to work with this for a second. Imagine that you’re a Civilization or Chess Grand Master. Literally the king of pure turn based strategy games (I’m clearly not the subject of this analogy because I suck at both those games). Then one day some troll starts hassling you about how you aren’t “really” good at strategy games because you haven’t reached platinum (or whatever the highest rank is now) in Star Craft.

Intrigued, the guy starts looking into all the units, the building types, how to maximize resource gain, and everything else involved with the grand strategy of a match. They decide to jump into a game, and get absolutely wrecked because all they researched about strategy was absolutely worthless due to the fact that their APM wasn’t high enough to build fast enough to keep pace with their opponent. Before they could even begin to apply the concepts they understand, they have to literally go off into the woods for a year and train like the Karate Kid or something.

Do you think it’s right to judge a strategy game player by standards which involve decidedly non-strategy components as a necessary barrier to entry? I don’t. And if someone interested in grand strategy games (Medieval Total War, Civ, etc.) was having trouble even finding their footing in concepts they understand because they have to pass a reflex test to even play the game properly, I don’t see that criticism is illegitimate. It’s not fair to say that Star Craft has NO strategy, but it is fair to say that the barriers to entry before they can take part in the strategy part of the game they like, are just too high for them to bother.

Let me put this another way. In MtG, I’d start with a deck / archetype / color combination / whatever that I was interested in, read up on “staples” “tech cards” etc. and then I’d play with that deck, knowing what the overall strategy of it is, and tweak it through matches.

Deck type -> tech cards -> proper mechanic execution.

What I’m saying is that this game feels backwards. It feels like:

Mechanics -> tech cards -> supposing you live long enough, on average, to pursue a strategy, maybe think about putting one of those in as an afterthought.

That’s why I’m here asking questions. But it’s a pretty big investment to get ground down for months on end, if you’re wondering if the same rich depth and deck building you’re used to is on the other side of the chasm. Surely you can understand that?

Thank you. Yes, the video replays are dead on, if the bulk of my complaint was 'this game sucks because I’m losing all the time." The response to that, obviously, is “play stupid games, win stupid prizes”.

That would be great! I already have to re-jump through a bunch of hoops to submit account deletion documents, and whoever wanted my account decided to comment on my anger issues and vanish, so maybe this is “fate” telling me something. I’ll re-install the game in a bit and add you.

OK, that sounds about how I was understanding it, but people seemed to be alluding more than that. Thanks for the clarification.

Let’s remove the “skill” and “ranking up” factor for just a second. It can feel haphazard when every deck you play and play against feels like a slight flavor variation of the same strategy, and everything seems to to come down to "you didn’t mulligan X right’ or “You didn’t move your minions right”. Things are very clear for me if I can think in terms of “My deck’s strategy was to do X, but on turn Y my opponent did Z that shut me down, so I should look into teching in W to deal with that type of disruption.” That is perfectly understandable. That’s not where I am currently, and so by definition everything is going to feel haphazard.

Right. I guess I’d respond with, “No one (save for pure trolls) would ever think that they’re making the play that’s less likely to result in them coming out ahead.” Which seemed to me that there was a more "objective’ component to the definition. From what others are saying, the objectivity comes from hindsight and aggregates, which rarely helps you in the moment, but it clears things up for me regardless.


Right. This might be why every deck, regardless of proposed “archetype” feels the exact same to play against, or to watch others play. This might be the source of my issue, it certainly is with Shadowverse at the moment.

In Commander, that usually is what the game boils down to. Removal is usually too scarce to deal with all threats from all X players at a table, so people have to make threat management decisions and remove “just the right pieces” to temporarily collapse an opponent’s system so you can eek out an edge. Even MtG standard when I played (Theros-Khans) felt like that. Aggro decks had “a system”, control decks had “a system”. They did a lot of stuff, played a lot of threats, a lot of it could be ignored, given how tight your mana was.

What is important is finding an efficient “wrench” to throw in. For example, you don’t have to Anger of the Gods an aggro player right away. It might be better to put in the 1/5 lifegain animal from Theros to block, bait burn, give life, etc. Wait for them to commit more to board, then board wipe. Then when they’re low on resource, play Resolute Archangel to reset your life to starting, and they’ll usually concede because now the curve is played on your terms.

That “do just enough to shut down your opponent’s system and no more” part of Magic is what I like, and what is definitely missing here. Namely because all systems feel like different flavors of the same thing.

This, I’ve noticed. The tiger has won me infinitely more games than the big hp -> +atk=hp buff combo. One of the last games I played was against an Abyssian who, near the end, just flooded the board with stuff I couldn’t answer. But I was able to smack her for 2 with a nearby minion, play tiger, buff tiger with ability, hit her with tiger, play arclyte regalia, hit her for 4. Just enough to kill her despite her having insane board advantage. This is, in part, why everything in this game feels like a combo piece and it feels so necessary to ensure you have something and your opponents have nothing at all times. Something, even if small, can kill you in a single turn in this game.

But yeah, great analogy and tips. A good way of using this analogy to be clear on my issue is that when the game is balanced around “knife fight mechanics” every deck feels like an aggro deck with combo potential, regardless of archetype.


Duelyst is a very fast game, you can find yourself killed on turn 6 by tempo argeon, I’ve seen songhai kill people from 25 health on 7 mana, get bursted regardless of having a full board of 4/14 arcanysts by starhorn on 8, and the list just keeps going.

I will point out that tiger kills are something that happen the most with argeon. His bloodbound spell to give minions 2 attack, make tiger his best removal option and the most burst damage he could do out of hand combined with immo. This is somewhat argeon-specific, tiger-lethals happen with other generals as well, but not nearly as often in my experience.

Most removal used in duelyst is very efficient, barring lyonar, they don’t have very good removal options meaning they struggle a lot with high HP targets(you can play martyrdom but that just feels really bad in anything other than control and even there it’s somewhat meh imo), Vetruvian also struggles with removal but not to the same extent imo-
To list the other removal options of other factions-
Songhai has OBS which turns something into a 0/2 panda for 3 mana, eternity painter which turns everything around it into 0/2 pandas at the end of the turn,
Abyssian has ritual banishing to sacrifice one of their own to kill an enemy for 3, punish for 2 which destroys any damaged enemies which when paired with Cassyva’s Bloodbound spell to become crazy efficient to destroy anything,
Magmar, who has natural selection for 2 which can destroy one of the lowest attack minions on board, which can become incredibly strong at times especially when one player has only one minion letting you get rid of it for 2 mana, thumping wave which gives a ANY minion +5 attack till the end of the turn and then turns it into a 3/3 battle pet for 4, this can be used both offensively and defensively.
Vanar(This is basically the removal faction), Chromatic cold which dispels a space for 2(which lets it bypass spell immunities like on mechaz0r and given by aegis barrier.) and if there is an enemy on that space it gets dispelled as well and gets dealt 2 damage, aspect of the ravager which turns any minion into a 3/3 for 1 mana, hailstone prison which returns a minion to your hand for 2, aspect of the shimzar which transforms something into a random battle pet for 2( which when comboed with thunderhorn can become AOE damage)
Vetruvian, has blood of air for 5, which turns an enemy minion into a 2/2 dervish with rush, while bieng expensive, the effect lets you make some very high tempo plays.

Note: there are also minions that act like removal but are attached to bodies, such as sandswirl reader and sunset paragon.

So I personally think not having a lot of removal is something that’s somewhat specific to lyonar as a faction, as most of their removal is somewhat double edged (either healing the enemy, dealing damage to yourself, or being downright expensive) . You can still run these options but (at least to me) it quickly becomes very apparent just how outclassed you are in this area. Control argeon is really the only deck runs hard removal like martyrdom, while other decks have to depend on damage based removal due to not being able to take martyrdom’s downside which can become a problem if your opponent plays high HP minions.

I think this is worth noting as the faction you start out with definitely affects how you perceive the game, in my opinion. (Not saying lyonar is a bad faction, or not the one to start out with, I think it’s the best one to start with as it lets you grasp the mechanics the easiest)


Are you seriously complaining about execution difficulty in a digital card game?


He is. Be constructive and answer him with why his complaint is apparently invalid.
Answering him with exasperation will achieve nothing but piss off both parties.


Am I the only one confused why there is talk about mechanics, reflexes, APM and whatever?
Unless there is a dozen minions on board to move, who cares how fast you click a mouse.

Somehow how you trade minions and use cards efficiently magically has nothing to do with your overall in game plan, which somehow has nothing to do with the deck :thinking:.

How different do strategies need to be? Dunno how everything is the same.
Spellhai, trying to aggressive burn down opponent as fast as possible.
Healonar, trying to slowly chip opponent while keeping yourself healthy.
Ramp (Vanar) decks, stalling until you can throw big minion after big minion.


Read the passage from my post he is referring to then you know why. Same for @isgopet


I have once made a deck with only removal because of this :smiley:

Sadly, it never won for obvious reasons.


It never lost either :^)


I did too an it was eh against everything but Vaath. It also topdecked variax and ran necroseer, voidseeker, blaze hound and sphere for mega thinning, but budget cass has never been anything like easy (especially when you’re new to the game).


it was that deck I was talking about that lost over 50 times, or was that the songhai deck that I was trying to get to work :thinking:


OK, probably should have made a response sooner, but I was busy being Gothic and cynical in the real world.

Execution is a beyond irrelevant skill in Duelyst. I could play this game using a third party Gamecube controller while wearing mittens and still do no differently. @logos89, this seems to be a kind of excuse for you. You’re not performing well, so you blame the game’s lack of “grand strategy” for your losses. You do show a great big glimmer of hope for improvement when you mentioned your own lack of “mechanical skill,” which is a step in the right direction.

When you say mechanics, what you’re really talking about are the fundamentals of positioning inherent to Duelyst having a board. The reason you haven’t developed these (I’m guessing) is because you went into Duelyst thinking you already understood the fundamentals of card games (I’m sure you do, and far better than I), but not acknowledging this game’s main feature, the board. I could say the same thing about MtG and how it requires mechanical execution because you have to think about when to sacrifice health for a minion’s survival. However, the reason you didn’t bring this up is because it comes naturally to you after the time you spent with MtG. Same with Duelyst. There are a lot of guides on positioning, and it’s not that hard of a concept, just an odd one.

This is just incorrect.

  1. Ok fair, if you have bad mechanical skill (read: sloppy positioning), you will lose against any half-decent player. Kinda same with when to block/when not to in Magic.

  2. I run a deck with no tech cards, only combo pieces. And also, is this a bad thing? Decks adjusting to each other based on the meta is healthy, right?

  3. Not having a strategy for your deck is called no win-con. Those decks are bad, especially in this well-rounded (archetype-wise) meta. You CANNOT rely on tech cards and “mechanical skill” to consistently win you games at high level.

If you want, I could analyze your replays and help you out with learning. That’s how I got my start.

Hope I did a good job of expressing myself.