7 minutes ago, RedMageStatscowski said:

7 minutes ago, RedMageStatscowski said:

If a deck wins too often in an Organized Play framework, there are processes in place to handicap and eventually retire that deck.

Quoted from the FAQ.

Woah, I had missed that bit. That's pretty ambitious. I'll be interested to see the rules for it.

4 minutes ago, Zetan said:

Margarita shooters and pizza sound like an OP combo.

12 minutes ago, RedMageStatscowski said:

1 hour ago, Robin Graves said:

I'm wondering if some cards might no be repeats across factions. Like Balistic Badger : Untamed faction: 4/2 who gives you 1 Aember when played . and Stellar Prince Logos faction: 4/2 who gives you 1 Aember when played.*

* just made these up as an example. Not real cards. (that I know of)

They won't make identical cards like that. They have a mechanic called Maverick. Very rarely a card will appear outside of its faction with the same name and art, but different faction colour and name.

I'm sure it'll just get some major chain disadvantage. After all, the chain tracker goes up to 24, and somehow I highly doubt a deck is powerful enough to win at that level of disadvantage.

19 minutes ago, Radix2309 said:

They won't make identical cards like that. They have a mechanic called Maverick. Very rarely a card will appear outside of its faction with the same name and art, but different faction colour and name.

I got it pretty much correct;

They say "very rarely" but yet they have a (named!) mechanic for it. It makes sense realy having the same card in several faction, makes it easier to balance I guess.

6 minutes ago, RedMageStatscowski said:

I'm sure it'll just get some major chain disadvantage. After all, the chain tracker goes up to 24, and somehow I highly doubt a deck is powerful enough to win at that level of disadvantage.

Not a ghost of a chance...

So here's one thing I thought of. Every deck is unique, but if a deck wins too much, they'll nerf it.

So imagine a scenario where there's one player who's just head and heels above the rest. So like Dan D'Argenio, who won three consecutive netrunner championships. Let's say Dan wins a lot of tourneys with one deck. How do we know if the issue lies with the deck being too good, or if it's just the player that's too good? And that seems kind of mean to nerf one person's personal property.

21 minutes ago, Supertoe said:

So here's one thing I thought of. Every deck is unique, but if a deck wins too much, they'll nerf it.

So imagine a scenario where there's one player who's just head and heels above the rest. So like Dan D'Argenio, who won three consecutive netrunner championships. Let's say Dan wins a lot of tourneys with one deck. How do we know if the issue lies with the deck being too good, or if it's just the player that's too good? And that seems kind of mean to nerf one person's personal property.

That's one of the multiple issues I have with this distribution model. Banning or restricting a card in a game is unpleasant but affect everyone. Especially in an LCG, no one paid crazy amounts for it. But here, banning a deck will meant that only 1 and only person will be affected. It's like telling them F*ck of, your purchase is invalid from now on. THat's highly problematic.

Here's the pitch:

Quote

THE ORIGIN OF KEYFORGE

In the early days of trading card games, they were played in many ways – and some of my favorite ways disappeared over time. Among those were sealed deck and league play. Both were awkward to manage because cards had a tendency to get lost in one’s collection. Also, players could only play with trusted friends because it was easy to cheat by improving one’s deck surreptitiously.

I have often wondered if I could get back some of that really exciting play, which was characterized by tools that weren’t universal. Each player had treasures no other player had, but also had less powerful cards that needed to be used in clever ways to get the most value. One’s sealed or league deck was never ideal – but it was unique, and there was a great deal of skill in getting the most out of it.

While I enjoy constructing or drafting decks, I am often longing to play cards that are not powerful enough to compete within these formats. When playing with sealed or limited decks, these cards often become viable, since you can’t just replace them with top tier cards. I find special pleasure in winning a game using cards that many people ignored or overlooked.

I have always been attached to good procedurally generated content. Game worlds generated in this way really feel as if they belong to me, the player – I am discovering them as I play; the designer didn’t even know they existed. Often games without such content are extremely managed experiences; everyone goes through the same story lines and can experience the same gameplay by making the same decisions. Everything they experience feels planned. The contrast feels to me like the difference between exploring a jungle and walking in an amusement park. When trading card games first came out the feeling was like exploring a jungle – and as the cards became more like commodities, it became more and more like an amusement park.

In the amusement park there are experts telling you how to play the game, the safest strategies, what net decks to use. In the jungle you have the tools you have. There is every chance that you are going to be the best in the world at playing your decks – you can’t just look up what the synergies are or the weaknesses; you will only find out by playing.

Welcome to the jungle!

Richard Garfield

April 2018

Rulebook, p.13

13 minutes ago, Hellvlad said:

That's one of the multiple issues I have with this distribution model. Banning or restricting a card in a game is unpleasant but affect everyone. Especially in an LCG, no one paid crazy amounts for it. But here, banning a deck will meant that only 1 and only person will be affected. It's like telling them F*ck of, your purchase is invalid from now on. THat's highly problematic.

I'll be interested to see how many times, if any, this actually happens.

Given the crazy amount of decks their procedure can create, I'd guess that the power level of decks is going to be like a bell curve where most of the decks are going to fall in the middle and most games are going be decided on your tactics and still rather than the power level of your deck.

5 minutes ago, netherspirit1982 said:

I'll be interested to see how many times, if any, this actually happens.

Given the crazy amount of decks their procedure can create, I'd guess that the power level of decks is going to be like a bell curve where most of the decks are going to fall in the middle and most games are going be decided on your tactics and still rather than the power level of your deck.

Obviously but as in any bell curve you have extremes. And extremes will stand out in a competitive environment. Not all of them, because obviously skill will play a significant part, but there will be good players getting top tier decks. And this is where the problem will be. As the question was raised before, how will you tell that the win rate is due to the the deck being OP or the player being genuinely good?

Is this FFG owned IP or some kind of license?

1 minute ago, Hellvlad said:

Obviously but as in any bell curve you have extremes. And extremes will stand out in a competitive environment. Not all of them, because obviously skill will play a significant part, but there will be good players getting top tier decks. And this is where the problem will be. As the question was raised before, how will you tell that the win rate is due to the the deck being OP or the player being genuinely good?

True but with so many things on the curve, I'm guessing the extremes will be few and far between.

How to know if it's the deck or the player is going to be an interesting discussion.

It looks like the back art is mix-and-match styles, and that the names are randomly generated in addition to the houses & primary color.

But on a serious note, my only real criticism here is an homage to Crocodile Dundee:

That's not a key...

1 minute ago, netherspirit1982 said:

True but with so many things on the curve, I'm guessing the extremes will be few and far between.

How to know if it's the deck or the player is going to be an interesting discussion.

By nature extremes will be low population but they will exist consistently towards the population by the nature of how random repartitions works. It will happen all the time, but of r a very small number of players.

9 minutes ago, Hellvlad said:

Obviously but as in any bell curve you have extremes. And extremes will stand out in a competitive environment. Not all of them, because obviously skill will play a significant part, but there will be good players getting top tier decks. And this is where the problem will be. As the question was raised before, how will you tell that the win rate is due to the the deck being OP or the player being genuinely good?

Make your matches two games. One where you play with your deck, and one where you swap decks.

I count at least 5 distinct "parts" to the card back, Plus colour. Not to mention names and the faction symbols themselves.

Just now, Xelto said:

Make your matches two games. One where you play with your deck, and one where you swap decks.

The problem with that is that you will always perform better with your own deck as you will play it against each opponent. While swapping, you will only discover the other deck for the first time. This is going to be difficult to factor.

7 hours ago, Xelto said:

Make your matches two games. One where you play with your deck, and one where you swap decks.

This is actually pretty ingenious.

As I said in another thread, I’d love to have a deck of mine banned for winning too much, because that deck was only mine, and it’d be epic and something I’d cherish. I’d frame that **** deck.

17 minutes ago, Inksplat said:

As I said in another thread, I’d love to have a deck of mine banned for winning too much, because that deck was only mine, and it’d be epic and something I’d cherish. I’d frame that **** deck.

"And this right here, kids, is a deck that I've won countless of tournaments with to the point it was retired, because players who spent hundreds for their decks were feeling bad at losing to such a weak deck"

Kid: But if you win every time, wouldn't that make your deck be the strong one?

"Indeed, but their meta-filled brains can't handle anything outside of the meta they believe in"

On 8/2/2018 at 12:35 PM, Hellvlad said:

That's one of the multiple issues I have with this distribution model. Banning or restricting a card in a game is unpleasant but affect everyone. Especially in an LCG, no one paid crazy amounts for it. But here, banning a deck will meant that only 1 and only person will be affected. It's like telling them F*ck of, your purchase is invalid from now on. THat's highly problematic.

I truly hope, given the low production cost per deck, that the tournament rules say “if your deck gets banned, FFG will provide you with a replacement deck.”