225 replies to this topic

[Itachi]

Another douche who likes to share his "well-founded worries" about this game? Well, part of, but hear me out first. All of the following is my personal impression.

 

I play AGoT for about 4 years and every now and then attend a tournament. I played in small ones, and I played in Stahleck, and I always had a good time. Now with 2nd edition picking up some speed, the number of players at tournaments increased dramatically (double, on avarage, I would say). A growing community is a good thing, and I am optimistic for the future of my hobby.

 

That said, it also became harder to distinguish onself at tourneys - the competition is fierce. And here I see the root of my worry: the irredeemable luck factor of the game. Some of it is rules-inherent, like:

 

- Setup: even the best players/decks can get screwed by a bad setup. Just look at the constraints: you pracically cannot, for setup purposes, run more than 12 non-setup cards in your deck, which seriously limits deckbuilding; you cannot keep a hand with one good character due to Marched to the Wall; you cannot setup a bunch of small dudes due to First Snow. So the chance for ending up with a lousy setup is pretty high, no matter how well-designed your deck is.

 

- Mulligan: Of course, here is a remedy for what I said above. But IMO it is a bad one, because you just get another chance of getting screwed, and no planning, no strategy can help you at this point. There are better versions of the mulligan out there, like the Hearthstone or Elder-Dragon Mulligan, which FFG could adopt to mitigate this issue.

 

- Running cards only x3: This makes things hard for all kinds of combo decks, because at times, you just don´t see a single copy of a card that is vital for your plan... again, specific deck-building is required to handle this: you cannot rely on specific cards to pop up, so you need to be able to make due with what you get.

 

Plus, there are some things that grew more serious with the cards they released:

 

- Killing things: Suspending a board-wipe like Valar Morghulis, they needed to print lots of other kill effects in order to provide players with tools to handle opponent´s characters. So far, so good. But in my view, there are two problems connected with this: First, you need to build your deck accordingly, with big but disposable characters and a ton of kill effects of your own. Hell, even NW plays Tears! Second, this just adds to the luck-based game where the first one to get through his Tears/Mirri/PttS gets a huge advantage, all depending on a lucky draw and setup, basically. Is there much room for comeback once you got wiped by the overabundant kill mechanics? You no longer can apply your own, because for that you need characters who win challenges... the point is: up to a certain point it just feels like gambling: Does my opponent have a hand´s judgment? A treachery? A save? And then, whoever won the gamble can drive home relatively savely - but is this what competitive play should feel like?

 

- Some factions cannot really compete: NW and Tyrell are struggling since the day they were released: Stark an GJ can be strong, but lacking intrigue icons is a big deal in the current meta. Targ is popular as a Banner (Mirri!), but not so much as main faction since First Snow. That leaves us with Lanni, Bara, and Martell as the dominating houses. On saturday, I will go to the Regional in Prague and I am expecting 85% Lanni, Bara, Martell, all of them probably revolving around kill effects (OK, Bara will probably focus on kneel, but presumably as a way to enable Tears). I will be playing Martell-Lion, with mixed feelings. I´d rather play Stark-Tyrell, with Blackfish, Sansa´s rose and Arbor red, but I know that I could not make the cut with this.

 

So what´s the point? I guess I just try to make sense of all the coin-flippy luck of this game and competitive play at tournaments. I tend to see the game less and less seriously; it´s becoming a nice way to spend time, and it captures the spirit of the series nicely - but as a game? I´m not sure... and of course, if someone won a tourney, it was due to his skill, but if a renowned player lost, he just had a bad day.

 

Of course, there are always a few people who still manage to distinguish themselves at tournaments in a relatively reliable manner (I could drop some names here, but I won´t ). I figure these guys manage to accomplish that because they have huge experience in the game which can swing the odds in their favor more often than not, but even those can get screwed by their next setup hand.

 

I would be interested in your thoughts on my thoughts - can you understand my feelings? Do you feel the same from time to time? What would be good measures to improve the state of the game? Or am I just a sissy who should shut up and play something else?

[mnBroncos]

Tldr I browsed what you are saying and disagree with pretty much everything you're saying. Being not able to distinguish yourself is not the games fault sorry to tell you. I want the game to grow and grow even if it makes winning tournament harder if you are great will still get yourself into the cut for a chance. Magic has hundreds and hundreds of players at large events and great players still do well on constant rate.

The only thing game needs and others will disagree but valar will make the game less about you just jamming your best characters onto the table.

The game is way less luck based than your making it sound and strong play makes a difference. Every card game goes through power swings at some point in the next two years nw will be top tier and people will complain about them. It's how card game work

[Nexus]

Card Randomization doesn't bother me, it's just part of what you sign up for when playing a card game, or really almost any kind of game.  If it's not random cards, it's random dice.
So, I think that's fine.   Somedays, you just play against luck.

I think the only truly broken thing in the game right now is Kneelratheon.

I can deal with losing a character to burn, or trying to play against Lannister's resource advantage, but when I can't use my dudes?   Game over man.
Tears of Lys can't be pushed through when your dudes are kneeled, neither can PttS.
When you get locked down, there's not really a way for most decks to unlock themselves.

You can try to Milk the relevant characters (if you drew it), but it just gets stripped off the next turn if not sooner.

But I think the largest sin of the kneelratheon deck is that it's not fun to play against.   It is anti-fun because you don't even get to play.   That kind of anti-fun makes people quit games.

[bored2excess]

The meta shifts around, we aren't even at the first anniversary yet. It's certainly been skewed by first snow heavily, and then again by repeatable-kill characters, but a larger sample is necessary before freaking out. I haven't played much competitive-level since mirri and tyene came out, but you could easily come through a painful PttS or Tears if your deck was built robustly.

[scantrell24]

I'm enjoying the hell out of it.

[Itachi]

The game is way less luck based than your making it sound and strong play makes a difference. Every card game goes through power swings at some point in the next two years nw will be top tier and people will complain about them. It's how card game work

 

The game is actually even more luck based because I didn´t even mention the Mountain or Heads on Spikes. Or random intrigue claim. You could almost argue that there are so many luck factors that they even out for all players...

[Itachi]

I'm enjoying the hell out of it.

 

I´m not saying that I´m not having a good time. It´s still fun to play. But I struggle to view the game as a competitive one because all kinds of random things are happening and you need luck to prevail. But maybe I´m just having a pessimist´s attitude.

[JoeFromCincinnati]

Who are the other douches?

 

 I have been pretty vocal about my concerns with this game.

 

As for your post, I agree with the worry, but not much else.

 

The things you're worried about and the things I'm worried about don't line up all that well.

 

I don't think it's broken by any means, as I can beat any oppponent with any deck (except Baratheon). But it still just feels stale.

 

The random nature of the game isn't really a problem for me, as that is about deck construction more than anything else. Luck plays a big part, but luck is part of any card game. The poker player that is dealt 2 aces is going to win most hands, unless their opponent gets an even better hand on the flop.

 

My big issue is diversity in the meta. And that may be a function of people just playing what is perceived to be the best, rather than it actually being the best, but at some point you can't argue the facts anymore.

 

Lannister is the best main faction and the best banner faction and they have been since, basically, the core set. 

 

I like seeing Martell and Stark win, but it often feels like a surprise when I see something other than Lannister win, rather than something that would be expected.

 

I like that every faction is capable of winning, but I wish there was a little more variety on a game to game basis. Right now, if your deck doesn't contain Lannister or Martell cards either as the main or banner faction (or isn't Stark Fealty), you're probably considered not a competitive player.

 

No game is perfect and, when it comes to how many factions can compete, this game is definitely more balanced than many. And I absolutely love playing the underdog, and that's part of the reason I am so invested in this game.

 

But just some stats to throw out there:

 

Of the 164 reported tournaments in the annals since March 24th, 2016 (Release of First Snow of Winter), there have been 82 winning decks that were either Lannister main faction (59) or banner of the lion (23). That's 50% of winners with Lannister cards in their decks.

 

The next closest is Greyjoy with 35. 18 as main faction and 17 as banner faction.

 

Since the inception of the game, there have been 350 reported tournaments (starting 10/10/2015) in the annals.

 

Of those, Lannister main house/banner decks have taken home 167 wins, with the next closest being Targaryen with 71 (42 of which were picked up prior to First Snow of Winter).

 

 

I know this will be written off as just Lannister hate. And I've already been warned that I may spit a bit too much venom towards Lannister. But those numbers just bum me out.

 

My local meta game nights have been getting smaller  recently. When the game first came out, it was 25 to 35 people on game night. Now it's down to about 10 to 15. We've had some where only 5 people show up. I've spoken to some of them and they just said they got sick of playing against the same deck over and over again (that deck being Lannister + whatever)

 

I do think, as the game grows, Lannister is bound to fall from grace eventually. I just hope we don't lose too many people before that shift occurs.

[ErsatzNihilist]

You could almost argue that there are so many luck factors that they even out for all players...

 

This is pretty sensationalist. Luck factors are pretty much the core of all card games because you don't know what order the cards are going to come out of your deck in; the fun part is mitigating that luck. Like deck randomness, Heads on Spikes and the Mountain landing shouldn't be the end of your game. If your entire deck hinged on one character, you're doing it wrong.

 

Perhaps something more predictable, especially in terms of your opening cards like Doomtown or Ashes would be more to your liking?

[Radix]

There is also Close Call to fix that dead HoS or Mountain character.

[Joshaw]

Luck, or random events occurring, isn't exclusive to card games, it's a part of living. Life's tough, wear a helmet.

[istaril]

We've been through this regularly. There are a tremendous number of variance mitigating factors in the game as well; controlled economy through plot choice, controlled tutor/draw through plot choice, the fact that you see more of your deck (on average) than in other cardgames because of the setup/redraw and 2 card draw.

 

As others have said, if a single Gregor/Heads on Spikes hit is ruining your deck, there's a chance your deck is poorly optimized. Sure, that does mean that certain decks (that depend entirely on a single character) are less viable, but it doesn't make the competitive game more luck based. Furthermore, FFG does seem to be working to enable those decks too - look at the plot (Close Call) that specifically allows you to increase your reliance on specific characters.

 

I track tournament results closely; good players are consistently making the cut. This is an indication that skill (either in deck choice, deck building, or play) is a key factor in determining your success, and that the 'skill' signal is not obscured by the 'variance' noise.

[Itachi]

I track tournament results closely; good players are consistently making the cut. This is an indication that skill (either in deck choice, deck building, or play) is a key factor in determining your success, and that the 'skill' signal is not obscured by the 'variance' noise.

 

I´m aware of that. But that might also be due to the fact that the "good players" attend every tourney in their reach and that is why their name gets recorded in the Annals regularly...

To me it still feels like I am partaking in a big lottery on Saturday, and one of us will be the lucky winner. Which is fine in a way, because that way everybody has a chance. But no matter how good you are prepared (like finding space for Close Call in your plot deck), it might all go wrong for you when it counts.

[ErsatzNihilist]

I´m aware of that. But that might also be due to the fact that the "good players" attend every tourney in their reach and that is why their name gets recorded in the Annals regularly...

To me it still feels like I am partaking in a big lottery on Saturday, and one of us will be the lucky winner. Which is fine in a way, because that way everybody has a chance. But no matter how good you are prepared (like finding space for Close Call in your plot deck), it might all go wrong for you when it counts.

 

Are you using the quotations marks there to imply that the good players aren't actually any good at all? Your opening post stated that you struggle to distinguish yourself because of the large number tournament goes and fierce competition. That doesn't sound like the sort of environment where people are just grinding out wins and relying on playing the averages.

 

Maybe you're just not very good at the game as you'd like to think you are and are suffering from a touch of the Dunning-Krugers here?

[gramyotron]

Card Randomization doesn't bother me, it's just part of what you sign up for when playing a card game, or really almost any kind of game.  If it's not random cards, it's random dice.
So, I think that's fine.   Somedays, you just play against luck.

I think the only truly broken thing in the game right now is Kneelratheon.

I can deal with losing a character to burn, or trying to play against Lannister's resource advantage, but when I can't use my dudes?   Game over man.
Tears of Lys can't be pushed through when your dudes are kneeled, neither can PttS.
When you get locked down, there's not really a way for most decks to unlock themselves.

You can try to Milk the relevant characters (if you drew it), but it just gets stripped off the next turn if not sooner.

But I think the largest sin of the kneelratheon deck is that it's not fun to play against.   It is anti-fun because you don't even get to play.   That kind of anti-fun makes people quit games.

So let's just hold hands ans say loud Thank You Designers for making Filthy Accusations plot:

-without Limit one per deck

-immune to any kind of cancel and Naval Superiority

 

Without it Kneel decks would not be even half as efficient.

[JoeFromCincinnati]

I´m aware of that. But that might also be due to the fact that the "good players" attend every tourney in their reach and that is why their name gets recorded in the Annals regularly...

To me it still feels like I am partaking in a big lottery on Saturday, and one of us will be the lucky winner. Which is fine in a way, because that way everybody has a chance. But no matter how good you are prepared (like finding space for Close Call in your plot deck), it might all go wrong for you when it counts.

 

When I go to a regional, if asked, I could probably accurately predict at least 50% of the top 8 just by looking at a list of the attendance.

 

Granted, the midwest isn't quite as stacked with competition as I hear the New York/Washington and Southern Cal metas are.

 

But there is definitely some consistency there.

 

So many games in this card game are decided by major mistakes, whether that be challenge math errors, challenge prioritization mistakes and good old fashioned misreading cards, the people who consistently make the most sound decisions given the information they have typically win the most games. 

 

Obviously, a good player can have a bad day. But if you're making the top 8 or winning, you're not getting there by luck.

 

There are so many ways to outplay your opponent in this game, it's pretty crazy that you would suggest that it all depends on the cards drawn.

 

As the old adage goes: I'd take a skilled pilot with a bad deck over an unskilled pilot with a good deck any day.

 

 

 

....I may be paraphrasing that.

[Itachi]

Maybe you're just not very good at the game as you'd like to think you are and are suffering from a touch of the Dunning-Krugers here?

 

Well, maybe. But how would I know? Even if I make the cut, I would sooner attribute that to luck than to skill. Although there is a general tendency to attribute one´s victories to skill and losses to bad luck.

 

I don´t deny, btw, that good players exist. But especially those should be able to understand how luck the crucial factor of the game, because if two good players with optimised decks play against one another - of course the one with the lucky draw will win (assuming that good players do not blunder). And they should also understand the problem that a bad setup can ruin their day.

[Itachi]

double post.

[Libor]

Yes, Lannisters are strong, without a doubt. But do they win tournaments because they are so absurdly good or because so much players play them? If you hear from all sides this game is all about Lannisters, seems logical that a lot of players take them for big tournament (or any tournament).  

 

Luck will be forever in card games, that can´t be changed. You can be screwed by setup, by bad draw, by lucky hit in intrigue... that´s game. First Snow and Marched are great card which shapes the way the game is played. I don´t think that any of these cards is problem for any house (with exception of NW and FSoW) 

 

Add targeted kill - you can use it on your own or you can prevent it. There are so many things to control annoying characters - kneel, icon stripping, cancels, Nightmares... If you are afraid of these effects, prepare for it. That´s part of deckbuilding. 

 

Add Prague Regional - we can meet there and I promise I won´t play Lannisters  In last Regional in Czech (back to first paragraph) there was 1/3 of houses Lannisters but only 1 made the cut and we had 6 different houses in TOP 8, so let´s hope that the games will be interesant this time, too.

[istaril]

I don´t deny, btw, that good players exist. But especially those should be able to understand how luck the crucial factor of the game, because if two good players with optimised decks play against one another - of course the one with the lucky draw will win (assuming that good players do not blunder). And they should also understand the problem that a bad setup can ruin their day.

 

Sure, it can. But some caveats;

 

- Making the cut invariably forgives at least 1 loss (often, more than that).

- Players generally recognize that 'making the cut' is a better skill benchmark than 'winning the tournament', because once you've made it that far, variance in pairing or draw can cost you a game. That's not to say that winning a tournament takes less skill, but simply that variance is 'higher' in the cut with single elimination.
- The percentage of bad setups is calculatable (thanks, agotsetup) and optimizable.