225 replies to this topic

[sparrowhawk]

Firstly, I'd like to thank Itachi for opening the most interesting thread we have had for some time. Istaril may dismiss it with "we've been through this regularly" but that (to me) came off as uncharacteristically arrogantly dismissive of genuine concerns that prompted someone to challenge the hobby with a lengthy well-argued (Czech native language) opening post and anticipate the almost unanimous disagreement, some of which has resorted to personalising the debate ("you are not a good player" etc). It was very brave of Itachi to post his concerns in a forum of hardcore fans and it saddened me that I had to wait until page 2 to read supercuts support him, the only person so far. Which has prompted me to post my support too - the kiss of death to his argument, no doubt!

Most of the points he made have already been made in a Beyond The Wall column. Please read Pete Wilson's very well argued comments here.

http://www.cardgamed...2#commentsStart

Note how, because Pete Wilson is an old respected 1E player and Pro Magic player on the Pro Circuit, his almost identical criticisms of the game were treated very differently to Itachi, who is less known among opinion-makers of the hobby. How his "interesting" response is now outright hostility in this thread.

My own feeling is that skill will obviously help you rise to the top. But you need luck to get there too.

One aspect of luck that Itachi did not cover was match-up luck. The game is very paper-scissors-stone for various meta periods. Reading the meta is a skill. But you then need to be matched up against those favourable decks too.

I recently took part in a 72 player Regional, ending a disappointing 14th outside the cut to 8. But as Lanni Wolf with 3x Nightmares and 3x Treachery, I knew I'd beat Stark and it would be an uphill game against Martell. Lo and behold, my results demonstrated this. In ThronesDB, there is a 77 player Bara Fealty deck that won the Catalan Regional - winning in Spain means he is a very skilled player but none of his matches were against Stark who can beat Bara easily, mostly Lanni decks. Match-up variance is huge in the game and the advantage one build has over another should not be as big as 80:20. All customisable card games have match-up variance but design should make the advantage only slight, say. 60:40. It's not as bad as playing Bloodthirst and meeting Song of Ice in 1E. But I really dislike the current emphasis on match-up advantage and what it does to tournaments.

Now my deck for this Regional was ridiculous because (a) I hadn't played in 2 months, attending the Regional only because I was already at the 3-day 25,000 visitor Convention so you are best playing high variance when you are at a skill disadvantage and (b] I really wanted to demonstrate the high luck in the game. My build included...

6x cost 7 (Tywin, Gregor)
6x cost 6 (new Ned, Jaime)
3x cost 5 (Tyrion)
3x cost 4 (Raiders)
3x cost 3 (1x Hound, Pycelle, Arya)
6x cost 2 (Burned Men, Bran)
8x cost 1 (1x Rickon, Bronn + reducers)

I really wanted to progress the above ridiculous "highs and lows" deck to demonstrate how polarised the game has become since First Snow (which like Gregor I play because you play the game as it is, not the one you wish it was, but hate it more than Heads on Spikes, it created this horrible big guy meta and importance of ambush hence Lion). Unfortunately I narrowly lost 2 games, one in which he set up his Tywin followed by Tyrion turn 1 and I never saw my Tywin/Tyrion then beat me to the win with Sneak Attack, the other loss was my fave game against bad match-up Martell Lion (I took 1 in 3 Heads on Spikes Tywin after he out-cancelled my Treachery of his Ghaston with good grace) where I made a crucial mistake (allowing him to Viper Eyes my Sword answer to his Tyene) so all the bad luck (like his intrigues that hit my crucial Milks) can't be blamed - I made a mistake and deserved to lose.

Now I never once saw a Tywin plus 1 coster set-up (that my build was optimised to exploit) but faced a couple and it was such hard going! And there were games when my high-low strategy worked superbly and I just steamrollered the opponent with the bombs that I drew. It just felt very luck orientated. I played worse in the games I won than in the two I lost. Something is wrong when you apologise to your opponent for winning in such a cheesy "I play a bomb every turn" way.

By widening the cost curve and set up to 8 gold and then making set ups of all characters less than 4 a bad set up as well as set ups of 1 character a bad set up, it is patently obvious that you increase the variance in the game. It's like rolling 1d8 (new cost curve) versus rolling 1d4 (old cost curve).

I don't think there's anything permanently wrong with the game, it just needs realignment. I feel First Snow has badly damaged the game but nothing that can't be fixed. However, I treat it currently as a less skillful game than its competitors (I play many games competitively), more a mainstream accessible game where every dog can have its day (appealing to a wider base) and less of a hardcore "gamer's game". As FFG want to sell units, I support how they have pitched it and it's great to be part of a more widely known hobby than niche 1E. But let's not fool ourselves that it's (currently) a particularly high skill card game please.

I really enjoy playing Thrones but as my 28 tourney games vs 13 practice games record attests, I just don't think the game is worth practising to any great degree with the current level of variance.

[actionjohnny]

Economy and draw wins games. In regards to economy, the earlier you can get it set up, the higher your chance of winning. You don't need loads, but your chances of winning in a game where you don't see a single reducer or economy card drop drastically. Economy is also the reason why Lannister is so good at the minute.

 

That's why I'm *so* excited for Kings of Summer - it's the Agenda that's basically going to drag people's income up to be able to compete with Lannister. I also don't really see Lannister decks playing it as they don't want for gold anyway and there are better bannering options for them.

[Serazu]

True. Introducing First Snow the time they did with that particular card pool was the DT's greatest error thus far. A truly incomprehensible decision.

As for the Tywin + economy weenie + economy location dreamy setup, well, just another reason to add Valar, even at a 3-0-0/6 statline (I do not think it's going to cost 2). Unless the Lanni player is extremely fortunate to have X2 Tywin in his starting hand, the mere threat of Valar should probably be enough to restrain him from exposing his biggest weapon so soon. That and of course the fact that no sane player would ever just play Tywin the minute he drew him without some sort of protection (duplicate, BG, Iron Mines in Kraken builds etc.) in a Valar environment. Playing Tywin at turn 1 can be hugely different than playing him at turn 3. I cannot blame the DT for wanting to test the game in a Valar-less environment, but the results leave no room for doubts: there cannot be AGoT without Valar. This plot is integral.

Other than that, there's no need for errata on Tywin or Tyrion (yet) so soon I believe, even though both are too powerful for the health of the game. Just restrict both for now. Those two should never have worked together, even from a thematic perspective.

Those are two things that have to be made the sooner for stemming the current tide. And since deluxe boxes will never phase out, the upcoming Lanni one is the perfect opportunity to reintroduce the king of plots.

[Itachi]

It just felt very luck orientated. I played worse in the games I won than in the 2 I lost. Something is wrong when you apologise to your opponent for winning in such a cheesy "I play a bomb every turn" way.

 

Thank you for your support, sparrowhawk. I am German, btw, but it is only a 3h drive to Prague, and the tournament there is going to be huge (close to 60 participants, if I am correctly informed). Despite my concerns about the game, I am looking forward to it.

 

I quoted this passage of your post because it captures well what I am trying to say - something about the game seems odd and it is hard to bring it to light. Of course it is a possibility to say "you are just incompetent", but let´s not oversimplify things. If I have no evidence to the contrary, I always assume that I am facing a competent opponent. But at times you just lose through no fault of your own, and sometimes winning doesn´t really feel good (at least in my experience) because you know that you just had a lucky streak by drawing all the bombs and answers, whereas your opponent, who presumably had some of his own, just didn´t.

 

Again, I don´t wish to deny that skill plays a role, and that games can be decided by mistakes and strong plays. But then again, all your skill and deck-building ingenuity can accomplish little if you just don´t draw the right cards at the right time, or lose important cards to random discard. And IMHO, this game right now has too many luck elements.

[Serazu]

Apart from Gregor, Tickler and Heads, I believe Crown of Gold should be added to the list. 1-per-deck cards should never have existed.

[MaShiKai]

Was there a plot in 1.0 along the lines of "Kill/Discard/Bring back to hand all Lords and Ladies in play." I think there was, Slave Rebellion or something? This might be a useful counter to the Lannister madness. The threat of them losing their big guys would help out smaller teams a lot.

[FedericoFasullo]

mmmmh no... 1.0 was more focused on non-unique so plot were there to punish non-unique abuse. never played CCG, might be in that edition...?

[JoeFromCincinnati]

How would you make intrigue claim not random? Look at opponents cards and decide? Name a card they could have in their hand and discard? Random is the only way it can be.

 

Ser Gregor is a bit of a bastard card but there are counters if you are so worried about him. Heads on spikes actually combos very well with other cards, namely in the Martell faction but also because of Seen in Flames. It can be used with luck but thats not the best way to play it. 

 

Presumably by just having the losing player choose what card to discard from their hand, a la military claim.

[Serazu]

Presumably by just having the losing player choose what card to discard from their hand, a la military claim.

 

Yeah, but that isn't true intrigue, a.k.a. "I foil your plans".

[Tomdidiot]

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.

I have been to 5 tournaments since January.  I consider myself a fairly good player and have made the cut in 4, missing the cut on SoS in the 5th.  I don't necessarily think cuts are as skewed as you think they are.  Yes, I was playing Lanny in 3 of the 5 tourneys (and playing Stark in the other 2), but so were many of my opponents!

 

And yes, I've had my share of bad luck.  I lost a game in a cut due to not being able to find an answer to an opponent's big dude.  However, I've also lost games to gambles which were potentially incredibly high payoff plays that backfired on me in the end, and I've won games due to the opposite/mistakes made by my opponents,.

 

 

Having said all that, I do agree with some of the sentiments in this thread.  I don't like what First Snow does to the game; it destroys any sort of competitive strategy based around low cost characters when they were already quite bad, and I don't think 1 per deck is a good balancing mechanism for super-powerful effects such as Crown of Gold.

[baragwin]

I agree with the original post that the game is not in a good place right now.  It's a high-variance, low-skill game relative to what we had in first edition.  Of course there's reasonable disagreement over whether this is a bad thing.  But even for those of us who think it is, there are still reasons to be optimistic about the future of the game.

 

1) It's early.  The current card pool is tiny and the game will change a ton over the next couple years.  The game we're playing now isn't the same game we'll be playing even a year from now.  More cards also means more diversity, as finding the "best" deck becomes more and more difficult.

 

2) Valar.  It won't have the same impact it had in first edition, but it'll still push things in the right direction.  Here's hoping they make it a 5-0-0.

 

3) The inevitable introduction of a restricted list (or some other mechanism for handling problem cards).  A year is a long time for any game to go without needing to fix a card or two.  It isn't hard to imagine a 10-card restricted list that would make the game significantly more fun.  Hopefully we get one in the next year.

 

 

Bottom line: if you're feeling down about the game for reasons similar to OP, you should stick it out because there are reasons to believe things will get better.

[Reclusive]

Take a moment to review the first 1.0 cycle. Throw the core set cards in the mix and you have a worthless game and meta.

Couple cycles in and voilà, game of thrones is the stupid sexy card game we all love. Handicapped by poor design choices early on and lack of planning for its longevity the game stayed strong.

2.0 is bound to explode. At present it's expected to be disliked by a percentage of the community but we knew that beforehands. It will only get better.

[sparrowhawk]

The attached photo is the board state at the semi final of the UK's largest Regional (72 players).

For those who can't open the attached photo...

Lanni Dragon vs Lanni Dragon

Start of challenges:

Player A
First Snow of Winter
1x Mirri
1x Illyrio
1x Gregor
2x Tyrion
1x Tywin with 2 Power
1x Roseroad
1x Western Fiefdom
4 gold unspent
2 power on faction card

Player B
Calling the Banners (so first player?)
1x Mirri
2x Illyrio
1x Gregor with 1 power
1x Tyrion
2x Tywin with 2 power
1x Western Fiefdom
2 gold unspent
2 power on faction card

FYI - one of them went on to win the final, a very well-deserved win because he was King of Swiss too (and to prove his card gaming pedigree, he was King of Swiss in Netrunner prior day). So skill does matter, to make the most of your luck.

The photo attached is a damning indictment of the state of the meta.

Cards like Captain's Daughter may help change this in future (I hope so). But right now, I wouldn't describe the "optimal decks" meta as "healthy". And there are very distinct match-up triangles like Lanni > Stark > Bara > Lanni that exist to exacerbate the luck of a tournament.

I hope admirable loyalty to the game does not blind those with access to FFG (as boasted to Megali) to feed back some of these grass roots sentiments so that these alleged issues may be reviewed and if necessary addressed without too much of a R&D lag. Posters like Itachi who bravely swim against the forum tide are performing a laudable service to the hobby.

Attached Files

•  image.jpg   205.03KB   1 downloads

[JoeFromCincinnati]

True. Introducing First Snow the time they did with that particular card pool was the DT's greatest error thus far. A truly incomprehensible decision.

As for the Tywin + economy weenie + economy location dreamy setup, well, just another reason to add Valar, even at a 3-0-0/6 statline (I do not think it's going to cost 2). Unless the Lanni player is extremely fortunate to have X2 Tywin in his starting hand, the mere threat of Valar should probably be enough to restrain him from exposing his biggest weapon so soon. That and of course the fact that no sane player would ever just play Tywin the minute he drew him without some sort of protection (duplicate, BG, Iron Mines in Kraken builds etc.) in a Valar environment. Playing Tywin at turn 1 can be hugely different than playing him at turn 3. I cannot blame the DT for wanting to test the game in a Valar-less environment, but the results leave no room for doubts: there cannot be AGoT without Valar. This plot is integral.

Other than that, there's no need for errata on Tywin or Tyrion (yet) so soon I believe, even though both are too powerful for the health of the game. Just restrict both for now. Those two should never have worked together, even from a thematic perspective.

Those are two things that have to be made the sooner for stemming the current tide. And since deluxe boxes will never phase out, the upcoming Lanni one is the perfect opportunity to reintroduce the king of plots.

 

That first line is incredibly accurate.

 

But restricting Tywin and Tyrion seems too much. 

 

The restricted list is an interesting balancing tool because, as more cards are added, you eventually generate a situation where you can't play two cards together that really don't need that restriction.

 

For example, one of my biggest irritations with First Snow of Winter is that there are certain factions (Lannister) that can do a first Snow of winter, then ambush in a 2 cost character, then march the following turn.

 

This feels awfully stupid and seems like they weren't even thinking about this interaction when they printed First Snow of Winter.

 

A solution to this would be to restrict First Snow of Winter and Marched to the Wall, to break up this silly combo. But then that means that any new card added to the list now cannot be played with these two cards, even if it isn't an interaction worth restricting.

 

I personally think there could be a list of more personalized restrictions. Like a one off list that lists each card with a restriction on it.

 

For example:

Tywin will be on this list, with Tyrion's name under his name (plus any future cards they don't want to interact with Tywin.)

 

This would make for a restricted list that doesn't have unintended consequences and only restricts the specific combos that shouldn't exist in the game.

 

But more to the point, if two cards from the Lannister core set were ever put on any kind of restricted list together, that would basically be an admission of fault by FFG, rather than a balance change, and would essentially be the equivalent to errata. They were literally designed within the same faction. That kind of oversight would be awfully painful for FFG to admit to.

 

I personally don't think restriction is necessary yet. I just think they need to chill with Lannister until the other factions can catch up.

[Tomdidiot]

The attached photo is the board state at the semi final of the UK's largest Regional (72 players).

For those who can't open the attached photo...

Lanni Dragon vs Lanni Dragon

Start of challenges:

Player A
First Snow of Winter
1x Mirri
1x Illyrio
1x Gregor
2x Tyrion
1x Tywin with 2 Power
1x Roseroad
1x Western Fiefdom
4 gold unspent
2 power on faction card

Player B
Calling the Banners (so first player?)
1x Mirri
2x Illyrio
1x Gregor with 1 power
1x Tyrion
2x Tywin with 2 power
1x Western Fiefdom
2 gold unspent
2 power on faction card

FYI - one of them went on to win the final, a very well-deserved win because he was King of Swiss too (and to prove his card gaming pedigree, he was King of Swiss in Netrunner prior day). So skill does matter, to make the most of your luck.

The photo attached is a damning indictment of the state of the meta.

Cards like Captain's Daughter may help change this in future (I hope so). But right now, I wouldn't describe the "optimal decks" meta as "healthy". And there are very distinct match-up triangles like Lanni > Stark > Bara > Lanni that exist to exacerbate the luck of a tournament.

I hope admirable loyalty to the game does not blind those with access to FFG (as boasted to Megali) to feed back some of these grass roots sentiments so that these alleged issues may be reviewed and if necessary addressed without too much of a R&D lag. Posters like Itachi who bravely swim against the forum tide are performing a laudable service to the hobby.

No, I was deliberately going second in that game.  Going first in that situation is horrible.

[LoneElfRanger]

I think the correct solution to fixing the First Snow issue is to print more Ambush Characters for other factions, to give them the same opportunities (if less synergy through Tyrion).

[BustaMazoo]

Complaining about random variance in a card game is like complaining about gravity. It's there. It's going to be there. Don't like it? I have a Go set I'd be willing to sell you. 

[ZenClix]

I keep seeing the same people placing and winning.  That's not coincidence.

 

However, I did win a small SC and did fairly well in the last OCTGN league.  THAT was luck!

[VonWibble]

I keep seeing the same people placing and winning.  That's not coincidence.

I was going to post the same.

Including about the luck involved when I won an SC and made a final at a regional. Variance helps players like me a bit, especially if I attend enough events!

[mnBroncos]

I'd like you to show me what card game doesn't have luck be an eliminate, rock, paper, scissors, etc type matchup where one side is favorited, or meta where every type of deck, faction, or what ever the game uses is equal. Heck magic that has WAY WAY WAY LARGER testing process has had many broken metas and needed bans.