Ordering & naming your deck, how does it function ?

[Sherigo]

Hi all, my situation is that i play treaty and sup. So i was trying to name my deck so that when i choose them in game the list would begin whit TR decks on top and sups deck on bottom, but in my case it was a total chaos, everything was mess up.
So my question is how does the order of deck i.e. names function?
I would like to name my deck in such order that when i'm in game at top would be my treaty decks, in middle my nr20 decks and at bottom my sup decks.
Any suggestion?

[musketeer925]

tbh If I played both I would probably keep separate home cities for each game type. There is a max number of cities on ESO but it is pretty high.

[P i k i l i c]

yes ordering decks is impossible AFAIK

[_NiceKING_]

Better make separate home cities as musketeer already said.
Something like this:

[musketeer925]

You can "order" decks by making copies of them and then deleting old copies. Oldest decks at always first.

You may have to make a copy, name it some junk, delete original, and make another copy to give it original name.

[P i k i l i c]

Thank you, I did not notice that oldest decks were always first. But yes, separate home cities is definitely the best choice

[britishmusketeer]

I don't like making seperate HCs because if you are playing treaty(not that I play it), you can forget to change and auto-lose games because of it.

[_NiceKING_]

I don't like making seperate HCs because if you are playing treaty(not that I play it), you can forget to change and auto-lose games because of it.

When do you pick a deck? After 2 minutes?

[britishmusketeer]

I don't like making seperate HCs because if you are playing treaty(not that I play it), you can forget to change and auto-lose games because of it.

When do you pick a deck? After 2 minutes?

qs viewtopic.php?f=19&t=688&hilit=2+qs+game+rated

[_NiceKING_]

well yea, in QS, it will be a problem, but I think it happens very rarely lol

[_H2O]

Don't over rate how important decks are. Right now most people's decks suck anyway even after specializing them. Their 1v1 decks have too few upgrades in them for sure.

Look at my decks. If you have trouble finding a deck you have too many. At most you need land and water for sup. Nats and no nats for treaty.

As an example. I had one city with like 8 decks and had muscle memory formed to scroll my mouse wheel and always click the right deck. I wouldn't have gotten there if I was choosing different decks every game.

[deleted_user0]

shouldnt have more than 7 decks imo, 7 or less means they all fit in the screen without scrolling.

[momuuu]

With most civs I roll with 1v1 standard, sometimes a 1v1 variation x, and then a 1v1 water and 1v1 heavy water. Sometimes I could use little tweaks in my decks for certain mus but that doesnt happen too often.

I guess for water decks theres additional card slots that open up so there are more match up-related decks you could theoretically make but water is boring so its not worth it :p

[Jaeger]

Don't over rate how important decks are. Right now most people's decks suck anyway even after specializing them. Their 1v1 decks have too few upgrades in them for sure.

Look at my decks. If you have trouble finding a deck you have too many. At most you need land and water for sup. Nats and no nats for treaty.

As an example. I had one city with like 8 decks and had muscle memory formed to scroll my mouse wheel and always click the right deck. I wouldn't have gotten there if I was choosing different decks every game.

Well I think for some civs it's ok to have more decks, for example you can have an ATP and non ATP deck in case of no TP map, maybe you can have a deck with both colonial huss upgrades as brit vs germany, etc.

[Mitoe]

Cohenski and I once tried to figure out how the decks organized themselves. There is some sort of system to it, but it's not one that makes any real sense. You're better off not trying to figure it out.

[_H2O]

Don't over rate how important decks are. Right now most people's decks suck anyway even after specializing them. Their 1v1 decks have too few upgrades in them for sure.

Look at my decks. If you have trouble finding a deck you have too many. At most you need land and water for sup. Nats and no nats for treaty.

As an example. I had one city with like 8 decks and had muscle memory formed to scroll my mouse wheel and always click the right deck. I wouldn't have gotten there if I was choosing different decks every game.

Well I think for some civs it's ok to have more decks, for example you can have an ATP and non ATP deck in case of no TP map, maybe you can have a deck with both colonial huss upgrades as brit vs germany, etc.

I'll use Spain here but this logic kinda pans out for all civs.

Land decks here:

Well what are you cutting for ATP. You can fill all of age 2 age 3 then 5 left. 2 factories and 3 vil. Now you have two left in most cases.

You can take age 1 mills and then exotic hardwoods on Spain or you can take age 1 mills and ATP for a land deck. I've never sent exotic hardwoods while trying so in a random game I'm fine with having ATP even on no tp maps rather than over optimizing for nothing.

[Gendarme]

I'm fine with having ATP even on no tp maps rather than over optimizing for nothing.

I think if you were serious enough about the game, you wouldn't be fine with it. Imagine if there was a $10 000 tourney hosted by Microsoft next year and all the great players of the past were returning to the game.

Perhaps you're fine with it because nobody matches your play at the moment, but if you were facing another Ryan, it would be another story I think.

[Darwin_]

I am pretty sure it is ordered by when they were created. Not certain though.

[sdsanft]

I'm fine with having ATP even on no tp maps rather than over optimizing for nothing.

I think if you were serious enough about the game, you wouldn't be fine with it. Imagine if there was a $10 000 tourney hosted by Microsoft next year and all the great players of the past were returning to the game.

Perhaps you're fine with it because nobody matches your play at the moment, but if you were facing another Ryan, it would be another story I think.

Well that's a very unfair argument. Obviously if that happened his opinion would change, but as of right now that's not the case and therefore something he doesn't have to worry about. You can't fault somebody simply based off of one what-if situation.

On a separate note, I think having as few decks as possible is really good. to me, not having some random card the 1% of the time when I might potentially need it is outweighed or atleast almost outweighed by accidently clicking on the wrong deck and then just being screwed.

[Mitoe]

Perhaps you're fine with it because nobody matches your play at the moment, but if you were facing another Ryan, it would be another story I think.

Yeah I think Exotic Hardwoods would be the difference between winning or losing in that case too.

[deleted_user]

honestly i used to do seperated homecities, but therefore i always pick treaty homecity in rush games i stopped that

[momuuu]

I'm fine with having ATP even on no tp maps rather than over optimizing for nothing.

I think if you were serious enough about the game, you wouldn't be fine with it. Imagine if there was a $10 000 tourney hosted by Microsoft next year and all the great players of the past were returning to the game.

Perhaps you're fine with it because nobody matches your play at the moment, but if you were facing another Ryan, it would be another story I think.

If you really care you delete all irrelevant decks going into a tournament so that you have the exact deck you want for that exact no TP map.

[_H2O]

That's what I do and it's opponent and map specific. I think there's gonna be way more things to focus on than the 20th card you send. You need to improve to push the game to that far

[Jaeger]

I'm fine with having ATP even on no tp maps rather than over optimizing for nothing.

I think if you were serious enough about the game, you wouldn't be fine with it. Imagine if there was a $10 000 tourney hosted by Microsoft next year and all the great players of the past were returning to the game.

Perhaps you're fine with it because nobody matches your play at the moment, but if you were facing another Ryan, it would be another story I think.

Well that's a very unfair argument. Obviously if that happened his opinion would change, but as of right now that's not the case and therefore something he doesn't have to worry about. You can't fault somebody simply based off of one what-if situation.

On a separate note, I think having as few decks as possible is really good. to me, not having some random card the 1% of the time when I might potentially need it is outweighed or atleast almost outweighed by accidently clicking on the wrong deck and then just being screwed.

That's not unfair lol, many people copy what h2o says, and just because it doesn't matter for him doesn't mean it shouldn't matter for anybody, because a wickedcossack vs wickedcossack could happen for example, where it would make a difference.

[momuuu]

I think the point is that having to select a deck is going top screw you over more often than having a suboptimal card as 20-25th card.