So this game has some neat ideas. However it stops there. Almost every aspect of this game seems to be flawed in some aspect. The biggest comes from the fact that you have almost no agency in what you play.

The first step that strikes me as just wrong is that you are most likely in any given deck to get a crappy deck. With random houses (colors), on top of random number of copies of random cards, most decks are going to be poor combinations that wont play nicely off each other.

The second is based on the fact that you will have a decent chance of opening what is essentially crap, you will have to make due. Sure you will probably be facing off against a significant amount of other crappy decks.

This leads to the third part. You will on occasion be facing off against a good deck. You will be outmatched. This is not due to any sort of player skill, just luck of the draw. That's great if you don't care about winning.

Now there is the rare scenario where you find a decent deck. Great! Prepare to have it banned. Wait you might say, what? Yup, banned.

Even worse that this... say you are a very skilled player. You manage to out play all the other crappy decks. You even manage to out play better decks because of skill. Guess what? Win too much and even that deck will be banned. Seriously? Banning a deck for player piloting it successfully? This simply screams cash grab. Oh, you are winning, well then you should pay us for a new deck since that one is too good...

P.S. I have updated my opinion... massively. Please read here:

Well it’s not for everyone. Especially not people who make a bunch of assumptions on the worst case scenario for everything. Those people should probably wait a while before trying something new and hold off on making judgement calls untill then.

i like the idea that a deck gets retired if it keeps winning. Games get stale if you know the likely outcome before play starts.

Maybe those decks get reprinted as part of a world’s best collection or a world champion deck and everyone can try them out for casual games.

I would love to be the pilot of a deck that wins so many tournaments it gets banned. Because there’d Be no one else with that deck—it’s mine , and it went down in the history books as one of the probably limited number of decks to ban itself out.

That sounds epic to me.

Just now, Inksplat said:

I would love to be the pilot of a deck that wins so many tournaments it gets banned. Because there’d Be no one else with that deck—it’s mine , and it went down in the history books as one of the probably limited number of decks to ban itself out.

That sounds epic to me.

Yeah but how much credit would be due to you, you didn't build the deck, you just were the (Lucky) one to buy it. Still, Arthur only pulled Excalibur from the stone and he got being a king out of it.

Hey if that should happen, you should legally change your name to "The Chosen One"

So, I've been out of CCG for a long time. Is it really a thing that deck composition is what wins? There's no skill at the table? You could just hand your decks to a robot to see who wins and be as happy?

That sounds... real un-fun to me.

1 minute ago, RARodger said:

So, I've been out of CCG for a long time. Is it really a thing that deck composition is what wins? There's no skill at the table? You could just hand your decks to a robot to see who wins and be as happy?

That sounds... real un-fun to me.

It's based on the assumption that given equal decks the best player wins. Of course people like to asume that because everybody netdecks these days... and Garfield aparantly made this game to stop that

The way I see it is half of what wins. It's half having the right cards for the job and half beeing a better player than your opponent.

5 minutes ago, RARodger said:

So, I've been out of CCG for a long time. Is it really a thing that deck composition is what wins? There's no skill at the table? You could just hand your decks to a robot to see who wins and be as happy?

That sounds... real un-fun to me.

It’s been that way since net decking started. There’s usually like 4-6 core decks you’ll see all over the place with only slight variations. With spoilers most “meta decks” are designed before the set even comes out.

They are promoting this thing like it's about skill and a good player will find a way to win with bad cards (Sounds like heart of the cards bs to me, but fine.) but that's reminding me:

a buddy o' mine once explained poker like this: "If you aren't good at reading people and bluffing, you can win with good cards. But If you can read people and know how to bluff... You can win with any cards."

So I'm wondering is there a bluff mechanic or a way to bluff in this game?

Like back in the day with Mtg, you'd play blue and leave 1+ card in your hand and 2 islands untapped, and every time your oponent even tought about playing something you'ld go: "I could have a counterspell in my hand".

7 minutes ago, Inksplat said:

It’s been that way since net decking started. There’s usually like 4-6 core decks you’ll see all over the place with only slight variations. With spoilers most “meta decks” are designed before the set even comes out.

Yeah at best it's one or two decks that are the best, one built especially to stop those- but will loose to anything else, and a 4th one that has somehow is winning because everybody underestimated a certain card.

And netdeck drives up the prices because everybody wants the same cards. This is why I only play casual.

I can go and build a magic deck for 10 dollars, and I will definitely be outclassed and be unable to do anything. Or I could get one of these and still have a shot.

These are procedurally generated. I am pretty sure they can hit a balance of characters to not be an autoloss. And they can create flatter powercurves based on rarity. There isn't going to be a common that is just better than otbers.

The idea that there will be decks that outclass others feels like a massive assumption considering we have less than 5% of the carss.

People can waste their money on an expensive net deck, for all I care. I always play with my own deck, since I (with my friends) believe a good player with an average deck will always win against an unskilled player with a net deck. I remember averaging top 4 regularly with my own deck against a tournament full of net decks, meanwhile my friend said he beat the tar out of a net deck using a TRIAL DECK.

It's what I believe in this game too. Even if you open a pack and get what seems like a poor deck, if you practice and learn the deck, it will become a powerful weapon in your hands, because it is YOUR deck.

2 hours ago, Krashwire said:

So this game has some neat ideas. However it stops there. Almost every aspect of this game seems to be flawed in some aspect. The biggest comes from the fact that you have almost no agency in what you play.

The first step that strikes me as just wrong is that you are most likely in any given deck to get a crappy deck. With random houses (colors), on top of random number of copies of random cards, most decks are going to be poor combinations that wont play nicely off each other.

The second is based on the fact that you will have a decent chance of opening what is essentially crap, you will have to make due. Sure you will probably be facing off against a significant amount of other crappy decks.

This leads to the third part. You will on occasion be facing off against a good deck. You will be outmatched. This is not due to any sort of player skill, just luck of the draw. That's great if you don't care about winning.

Now there is the rare scenario where you find a decent deck. Great! Prepare to have it banned. Wait you might say, what? Yup, banned.

Even worse that this... say you are a very skilled player. You manage to out play all the other crappy decks. You even manage to out play better decks because of skill. Guess what? Win too much and even that deck will be banned. Seriously? Banning a deck for player piloting it successfully? This simply screams cash grab. Oh, you are winning, well then you should pay us for a new deck since that one is too good...

Negative much?

I think this concept and game is going to require a shift in thinking. Every card game is the same, buy booster packs or specific cards to build the best deck you can, destroy opponents. That's not the case with this one and I think that's why a lot of people are only seeing the negative.

This is a paradigm shift and I for one am looking forward to seeing how it plays out, and I'm already thinking of ways to do leagues and other fun stuff with this new concept,

12 hours ago, Krashwire said:

The first step that strikes me as just wrong is that you are most likely in any given deck to get a crappy deck. With random houses (colors), on top of random number of copies of random cards, most decks are going to be poor combinations that wont play nicely off each other.

I am not sure that it is exactly how it will work. Decks are not randomely generated, they are procedurally generated. There will be parameters in the deck generation. For example, the first step of generation will be to select 3 houses at random. From there next step will be to select at least X card from each house. Of course they can input many parameters such as that each deck should at least contain a rare card for example...

The idea is that each deck will be playable thanks to the constraints but also that each deck might have some suprise that you will have to deal with... and your opponent also.

11 minutes ago, wirbowsky said:

I am not sure that it is exactly how it will work. Decks are not randomely generated, they are procedurally generated. There will be parameters in the deck generation. For example, the first step of generation will be to select 3 houses at random. From there next step will be to select at least X card from each house. Of course they can input many parameters such as that each deck should at least contain a rare card for example...

The idea is that each deck will be playable thanks to the constraints but also that each deck might have some suprise that you will have to deal with... and your opponent also.

I invite you to watch the livestream recordings about the game from Team Covenant's FB. Brad Andres says explicitly that occurrences with decks filled with only rare cards or decks with 16 time the same card can occur even if it would be really rare. ( yes 16, due to the maverick mechanic you can have more than 12 times the same card) That means the procedural roles are not so structured and the variance on what you will get into a deck can be quite hectic. They cannot pull so many different decks out of 350 cards ( 10^25, that's the number they announced) while keeping a deck and mechanical coherence. THat's the point of the whole thing anyway. You get a"sub optimal deck" ( a crappy one if you don't get corporate language) and you need to make the best of it. If you expect a software to do some clever / logical deckbuilding in there, you will be disappointed.

If you account for maverick cards there are actually 350x7 possible cards in the card pool

6 minutes ago, TylerTT said:

If you account for maverick cards there are actually 350x7 possible cards in the card pool

If you consider this it means you tanke into account decks that will be created wit 36 identical cards. Not really my idea of fun...

They said the theoretical max is 16 dupes

Think about that.

That obviously means there are limits on how many such mavericks can appear in a deck. (Hint it’s probubly a max of 4)

I have a pretty deep respect and trust in Richard Garfield being very smart about this stuff and will happily give him the benefit of the doubt on trying something new.

And what I’m out $40 bucks if I’m wrong?

So rain on someone’s else’s parade, let people enjoy things that may not be for you.

You are not a righteous crusader, companies and artists have no obligation to make sure every product services your needs and wants.

4 minutes ago, TylerTT said:

They said the theoretical max is 16 dupes

Think about that.

That obviously means there are limits on how many such mavericks can appear in a deck. (Hint it’s probubly a max of 4)

I have a pretty deep respect and trust in Richard Garfield being very smart about this stuff and will happily give him the benefit of the doubt on trying something new.

And what I’m out $40 bucks if I’m wrong?

So rain on someone’s else’s parade, let people enjoy things that may not be for you.

You are not a righteous crusader, companies and artists have no obligation to make sure every product services your needs and wants.

There is a crucial difference between game design and marketing. I don't complain about how the game was designed. I actually find the rues pretty nice and the game would have been marketed in an other way i would have certainly given a try. This has nothing to do with Richard Garfield but with the way FFG chose to sell this product. I said from the beginning I am trying to understand how possibly this business model is supposed to work and no one was able to bring a fair answer to my questions .

It's not a matter if the game is for me or not. There is good and bad business practice and having the final product matching my tastes and needs has nothing to do with it. Expecting people to throw money at decks where you cannot chose which game mechanic they will focus on and with no idea if you will like them ( I'm not even talking about the competitive aspect here, just the fun you can get from it) is not a healthy business model and it will not work unless it will pressure the players to by extras by using the same methods as video games editors do with lootboxes.

FFG spend time and resources to come up with this game, that I think is a flawed model do just by the facts and numbers presented. They could have inveted all that time and funding into something else that could have been more consumer friendly and less of a cash grab.

You still want to take part on it and invest money? Am I preventing you? no , be my guest, buy in. But white knighting something just because "you have a deep respect for the designer" will not make you right and give you the right to call out and dismiss people that don't share your enthusiasm. I have just the same rights as you to share my concerns about this products than you have the right to share your excitement.

Lol.

Ok. I will be sure to start posting on GW forums that I’m sure their business model for 40k is holding it back and blah blah blah,

7 minutes ago, Hellvlad said:

Expecting people to throw money at decks where you cannot chose which game mechanic they will focus on and with no idea if you will like them ( I'm not even talking about the competitive aspect here, just the fun you can get from it) is not a healthy business model and it will not work unless it will pressure the players to by extras by using the same methods as video games editors do with lootboxes.

Or unless it really doesn't matter what's in the box.

Seriously, this looks like a very casual game. The point is to have fun, to have a game with variable cards where you still don't know what your opponent's deck has after you see his first four cards. One where you run a variety of decks and playstyles, rather than refining a single deck to infinity.

Then, it doesn't matter that the deck you got isn't Dis/Shadows/Brobnar. You can have fun with Mars/Shadows/Untamed, too.

25 minutes ago, Hellvlad said:

There is a crucial difference between game design and marketing. I don't complain about how the game was designed. I actually find the rues pretty nice and the game would have been marketed in an other way i would have certainly given a try. This has nothing to do with Richard Garfield but with the way FFG chose to sell this product. I said from the beginning I am trying to understand how possibly this business model is supposed to work and no one was able to bring a fair answer to my questions .

It's not a matter if the game is for me or not. There is good and bad business practice and having the final product matching my tastes and needs has nothing to do with it. Expecting people to throw money at decks where you cannot chose which game mechanic they will focus on and with no idea if you will like them ( I'm not even talking about the competitive aspect here, just the fun you can get from it) is not a healthy business model and it will not work unless it will pressure the players to by extras by using the same methods as video games editors do with lootboxes.

FFG spend time and resources to come up with this game, that I think is a flawed model do just by the facts and numbers presented. They could have inveted all that time and funding into something else that could have been more consumer friendly and less of a cash grab.

You still want to take part on it and invest money? Am I preventing you? no , be my guest, buy in. But white knighting something just because "you have a deep respect for the designer" will not make you right and give you the right to call out and dismiss people that don't share your enthusiasm. I have just the same rights as you to share my concerns about this products than you have the right to share your excitement.

How are we white knighting this game? It hasn't been previewed, let alone released. You are the one coming on here and posting doom and gloom.

It isn't an objectively bad business model, there are plenty of us interested in it. I don't know what I am getting in a tcg, I still get packs.

You don't stop our enjoyment of the game. But you do do is derail conversations and create a toxic atmosphere. If you don't like it fine, but stop going into other people's threads and saying the game sucks.

1 hour ago, Hellvlad said:

Expecting people to throw money at decks where you cannot chose which game mechanic they will focus on and with no idea if you will like them ( I'm not even talking about the competitive aspect here, just the fun you can get from it) is not a healthy business model and it will not work unless it will pressure the players to by extras by using the same methods as video games editors do with lootboxes.

You are right that it looks like lootboxes but I think looking at it from the perspective of player who really wants to use specifc mechanism like a control deck is wrong for Keyforge. I think the goal is to go back to the experience we had when we opened our first Magic boxes 25 years ago. We opened a box, discovered our cards and played with it. Our opponent was doing the same and we were looking with amazement at the cards that they had in their deck. Of course after the game you could exchange or trade cards, buy boosters... but that feeling of playing with your first deck was quite nice.

1 hour ago, Hellvlad said:

There is a crucial difference between game design and marketing. I don't complain about how the game was designed. I actually find the rues pretty nice and the game would have been marketed in an other way i would have certainly given a try. This has nothing to do with Richard Garfield but with the way FFG chose to sell this product.....

How else do you sell unique decks, unless you sell them as decks?

Besides many players will have fun, because when they loose they blame their deck, and no one will ever know any better.

There are no mistakes, just happy accidents and boy oh boy was my deck smiling when it left the factory.

5 minutes ago, Amanal said:

How else do you sell unique decks, unless you sell them as decks?

Besides many players will have fun, because when they loose they blame their deck, and no one will ever know any better.

There are no mistakes, just happy accidents and boy oh boy was my deck smiling when it left the factory.

Why not make 12 card packs for each factions? You want to keep that feeling that no deckbuilding is required or allowed? fine. Bye 3 packs for 3.33 USD each and mix them together and done. Unhappy with one of the factions, change. by buying another pack. I don't see how the game would suffer from it. This even allow later the introduction of expansion through new factions without alienating your initial purchases entirely. You would just have a bit more control and ... oh... that would make people buy way less decks for the same results because it would be easier to get the factions you like... yeah... what a terrible idea

Trust me there would be ways to sell these in a more customer friendly way by still keeping the spirit of the game. They just choose to go with the least consumer friendly

2 minutes ago, Hellvlad said:

Why not make 12 card packs for each factions? You want to keep that feeling that no deckbuilding is required or allowed? fine. Bye 3 packs for 3.33 USD each and mix them together and done. Unhappy with one of the factions, change. by buying another pack. I don't see how the game would suffer from it. This even allow later the introduction of expansion through new factions without alienating your initial purchases entirely. You would just have a bit more control and ... oh... that would make people buy way less decks for the same results because it would be easier to get the factions you like... yeah... what a terrible idea

Trust me there would be ways to sell these in a more customer friendly way by still keeping the spirit of the game. They just choose to go with the least consumer friendly

This method doesn’t work at all. Selling house packs with 12 random cards...how could you mix them with the other packs without making them the same back, which means there’s be no way to stop you from then buying multiple of the same faction packs and then swapping cards around. You’d literally just end up with a normal ccg?