144 replies to this topic

[szczudel]

Both of you must be playing with some boring decks, then.

 

Even if I loose with my defensive NW more than I win (Now it has changed since I do not play Bara or GJ) still at least 1/3 of those games are enjoyable. But not in "yup, it was fun" but rather "hell yeah, this is what I call AGOT LCG experience". They are worth the rest 2/3 which might get boring because I did not get enough Roseroads to keep up with oponent.

 

Plus, appreciate FFG not standing in way of allowing full experience on OCTGN.How many products can you fully experience before deciding to buy it. Even if I am aware that half way first cycle it will get more balanced I am buying 3xCS day one. I will use them anyway so why not let FFG earn their $$ right away for a product that already IS good and will get only better.

 

@Gamaran. There is some thruth in what you are writing but because you put it in a way thay it is supposed to be obvious truth it sounds more like lies (It is like listening to a politician, even when he says 2+2=4 you sense some mischief). Baratheons are in advantage with any house, yes, they are not invincible, I know it I have defeated them couple of Times but it is Madness not to recognize their superiority. If CheapJoys, those stealth shitting maniacs, are afraid of Bara it means something.

 

Right now I sit and wait for some better NW cards, that will allow me to enter Bara - NW match with equal chances of winning. This time will come, untill then I want to have most universal defensive deck possible. I will not kneel to any faction - deck is either universal or it is complete ****.

[ooo]

This is just the natural progression of things when games are more catered towards a more casual fan base, people will always need something to complain about being too strong. Its going to be either Greyjoy Rush, or Targ burn, or Bara kneel or Martel stall (as more packs release).

 

It will be a never ending cycle of finger pointing, Baratheon is strong right now, but its marginally strong. The way people are trying to portray Baratheon is disingenuous, like they are a house that cant lose, and they are very far from there when compared to the other strong houses out of the core box.

I'm not sure that's true.  For me it's also not just a balance issue, it's a play experience issue.

 

1) as somebody who's played Pro Tours I'm not exactly 'casual'

2) when we've played non-Bara decks vs each other the games have been relatively even, certainly nothing really reduces you to a spectator like Bara
3) even though the games are even they're actually rarely enjoyable

 

I'm leaning towards waiting a year to see what happens to the game before I invest.  I've a month to decide before it appears in stores, so we'll see...

[Kingsley]

This is just the natural progression of things when games are more catered towards a more casual fan base, people will always need something to complain about being too strong. Its going to be either Greyjoy Rush, or Targ burn, or Bara kneel or Martel stall (as more packs release).

 

It will be a never ending cycle of finger pointing, Baratheon is strong right now, but its marginally strong. The way people are trying to portray Baratheon is disingenuous, like they are a house that cant lose, and they are very far from there when compared to the other strong houses out of the core box.

 

My issue isn't that Bara is too strong - I don't think it is! I have a very favorable record with my Targaryen against it. My issue is that many of my games are just not fun, and I'm not entirely confident that things will get better.

[Gamaran]

I'm not sure that's true.  For me it's also not just a balance issue, it's a play experience issue.

 

1) as somebody who's played Pro Tours I'm not exactly 'casual'

2) when we've played non-Bara decks vs each other the games have been relatively even, certainly nothing really reduces you to a spectator like Bara
3) even though the games are even they're actually rarely enjoyable

 

I'm leaning towards waiting a year to see what happens to the game before I invest.  I've a month to decide before it appears in stores, so we'll see...

 

I wasnt talking about you when i made that post but if you feel targeted then go ahead.

 

Anyways, if you had to give a arbitrary rating from 1-10 to the top houses (Bara, Greyjoy, Lannister and Targ) how exactly would you rate them? if you took added up the consistency, average strength of cards and overall playstyle.

 

They way you are arguing your point makes it sound like you feel all the houses are 5/10 - 6.5/10 and Baratheon is a 10/10. While im pretty sure if you averaged out the feel of other people in the community the rankings of other houses would be around 8/10 - 8.5/10 and Baratheon near 8.5/10 - 9.0/10. Some people rate Targ over Bara even and some still support that Greyjoy has a great match up vs Baratheon.

 

So i honestly think your views are skewed up against Baratheon and you either havent explored enough the other strong houses or something in your playstyle or plot deck is sabotaging your play against Baratheon

[Gamaran]

My issue isn't that Bara is too strong - I don't think it is! I have a very favorable record with my Targaryen against it. My issue is that many of my games are just not fun, and I'm not entirely confident that things will get better.

 

Maybe we find different things exiting then, to be honest i love playing against Baratheon because im such a underdog when im not playing with the top tier houses. When im Tyrell or Martel vs Baratheon it feels like a real challenge to outplay the opponent, each plot you select, each challenge you get is crucial. 

 

Baratheon currently forces you to stay on your toes, and i love that, you dont know if the cards you played on set up will be knelt or not by the time challenges come and that makes you change the way you marshall, you dont know if Seen in the flames will take a key card from your hand either so that makes you play differently with your hand too. Baratheon forces you to adapt and consider a lot more scenarios than normally you get. There are many more layers of decision making you have to go through when playing your plots or when marshaling your cards.

[ooo]

I'd say, standalone, you've got a 9, an 8, then a bunch between 6 and 7 who can all gain approx 1 point for bannering correctly.  I'd stand by that.

[agktmte]

I'd say, standalone, you've got a 9, an 8, then a bunch between 6 and 7 who can all gain approx 1 point for bannering correctly.  I'd stand by that.

 

7-9 rated decks for the factions in a core set environment seems pretty good to me.

[Gamaran]

And who is the 8's and who are the 7's because you feel out of tune with how i perceive the houses and how many other people have expressed their feel of the core set environment. And even with your perception as you said if you Banner correctly then they get +1, that means the 8 you listed is now on part with Baratheon on overall power, the 7 you listed is now a 8 which is extremely close to Baratheon and if played correctly can win, and even on the worst match ups of the 6's, they are 7's and arent that much far behind. So im not buying into all this doom saying that the Core set in unplayable or really unbalanced, some houses are stronger than others, with as many mechanics as we have and a limited card starting point that is unavoidable, however the differences between houses if played correctly is marginal.

 

And like i said, a lot of people rate Greyjoy very highly and some rate Targ even over Baratheon depending on Banner.

 

The important thing isnt finding out which house is the strongest and then grab our pitchforks and hate on the whole game. Its knowing by how much are they stronger than the other top tier houses and realizing that between top houses they arent that far apart from each other.

[szczudel]

I would say the key is to find faction that suits you most and embrace it. Someone has written that there will be time for every faction to shine. 

 

I am sticking with NW for good or bad. I want to make perfect defence deck a reality!!

[kizerman86]

Some general observations:

 

-  There were a TON of playtesters, who got the cards several months ago.

-  MANY of the playtesters take the game seriously enough to attend GenCon and buy 3x Cores there

-  A smaller cardpool makes for a more easily solved meta

 

These 3 observation basically spell out that Bara is the best *in the core meta* and most people that are actively playing right now have (A) Playtested and had access to the cards for months, ( recognized that Bara is (slightly, but not extremely) above the power curve before the game was even released., and © been playing AGoT competetiely for quite a while.

 

Now, before you say something like "If playtesters believed Bara to be above the curve it should have been addressed," understand that SOMETHING has to be the best deck it just takes time to "solve" the meta.  Also keep in mind, it isn't significantly above the curve.  I do think it is the best, but I adamantly believe they aren't broken.

 

All this to say, I don't think the problem is Bara.  I think it is an inherent issue with the delayed release in relation to OCTGN availability.  If we had a new pack this week, this thread (and general sentiment of Bara being OP) wouldn't exist.  Since the game has been available on OCTGN for so long already, and playtesters have been playing the same cards for several months, this delay has caused the meta to stagnate a bit after being mostly "solved". Hopefully, the meta will be shaped by the first cycle dramatically, by filling out different house themes and introducing the 18 new plots Nate mentioned in his recent article.

 

Until then, however, just accept that the cardpool doesn't support a very diverse meta *yet*.

[Gamaran]

I would say the key is to find faction that suits you most and embrace it. Someone has written that there will be time for every faction to shine. 

 

I am sticking with NW for good or bad. I want to make perfect defence deck a reality!!

 

The second NW gets a reliable Tutor for The Wall they would be come one of the top houses. The only thing holding back defensive NW right now is how much they depend on drawing The Wall early and having enough gold to play it.

[ooo]

*

[kizerman86]

I really think the variance issue will be mitigated when more 2-4 cost characters that support their factions themes get printed.  For now, the only way for your deck to do what it is supposed to is to draw your 6 or 7 cost characters.  So you have to play 3x.  So you have crappy setups.

[ooo]

* 

[Skelton]

Some of the best players in the world sat playtesting this for months. There were more playtesters for this than any other game FFG have released and you think that this was an oversight? You certainly have a high opinion of yourself.

[Gamaran]

You're judging a scoring rating without full information though.  Look at FIFA - a 60-rated team is MUCH worse than a 90-rated team.  Try and race a car with a top speed for 60mph against a car with a top speed of 90mph.  You can't directly extrapolate them into a play experience the way you just did.

Put it another way, the 9 is 50% better than the 6.  50% better sounds like a lot, right?
 

I think Baratheon are head and shoulders above.  Greyjoy are the 8, and I think both Bara and GJ can probably squeeze an extra +0.5 from bannering well.  Targ/Lannister would be my 7s, the rest I think are 6 to 6.5 but really need to think carefully about bannering and that makes most of the difference.

 

But as I've said several times, for me it's not a just a Bara balance issue.  I feel like right now the non-interactive play experience of AGOT setup variance and snowballing playstyle is more prevalent and frustrating than the non-interactive play experience of something like mana screw in Magic.

 

Between Kneel, Stealth, ridiculous one-sided card draw engines, setup variance and a cardpool that has far more 'beat you down' cards than 'help me get back up' to compensate for the natural weaknesses in the game mechanics... I play an awful lot of games where the outcome is decided very rapidly and the rest is working out just how bruised one player's knuckles will be once they're finished punching their defenseless opponent in the face and actually got to 15 power.

 

The worst houses will always have loopsided games vs the best houses, there is no way around that. Same way that in one year or two, the worst decks will always have loopsided games vs the best decks in the meta. Right now there are like 14 decks, 4 decks are top tier, 4 decks are bottom tier. In two years there will be like 60 decks, 10 will be top tier and 10 will be bottom tier. The split will always stay relatively the same.

 

With the best possible starting hand Targ and Baratheon have the most snowball potential right now, but when they dont draw into their center pieces or if those center pieces get killed, you are ****** and have no way to win basically. Houses like Greyjoy or Lannister can win with basically any two good units they draw, they are way less reliant on having their cores out to win. If you kill Euron or Tywin then the decks still runs smoothly.

[ooo]

* 

[kizerman86]

Magicdave - They can only fit so many cards in a core set.  To have 8 playable factions out of the box (important for casual gamers and incidental fans of the series who want to give the card game a shot) is a huge challenge, considering the number of cards they can release in a core set at a price point that will reach more casual gamers.

 

We (serious, competetive players) have to wait for more cards before the game meets our needs more completely.  There is no "right answer" that satisfies both the casual gamers and serious competetive players in a core set with 8 playable factions.

 

Ironically, you pointed that out to me

[ooo]

*

[ooo]

*