Hi all! Where can I go for info on how the Chains handicapping system is likely to be developed? It would be useful to have a sticky thread for developments here.
Also, it seems to me that decks should be able to come rated with an initial number of Chains right off the press. If we can look at a deck list and know its a pile of manure, so can an algorithm.
1 hour ago, yangtze said:Hi all! Where can I go for info on how the Chains handicapping system is likely to be developed? It would be useful to have a sticky thread for developments here.
Also, it seems to me that decks should be able to come rated with an initial number of Chains right off the press. If we can look at a deck list and know its a pile of manure, so can an algorithm.
It’s not really an objective thing; it’s based on wins, and players perceptions of which decks they “think” are better.
Currently it’s just a bid system between two players as to who gets to use the deck they both like.
4 minutes ago, Derrault said:It’s not really an objective thing; it’s based on wins, and players perceptions of which decks they “think” are better.
Currently it’s just a bid system between two players as to who gets to use the deck they both like.
Right, and unfortunately all of that is a real problem for me. I think it could and should be primarily objective, perhaps adjusted by deck win rates. The problem is, you can't separate the deck's quality from that of the player. For example, if a great player buys a killer deck from a bad player, they're going to walk into their next tournament with no Chains and a certain win. If the killer deck can be objectively recognised as such, and it can because we do it by eye all the time, then it can be allocated Chains from birth.
2 minutes ago, yangtze said:Right, and unfortunately all of that is a real problem for me. I think it could and should be primarily objective, perhaps adjusted by deck win rates. The problem is, you can't separate the deck's quality from that of the player. For example, if a great player buys a killer deck from a bad player, they're going to walk into their next tournament with no Chains and a certain win. If the killer deck can be objectively recognised as such, and it can because we do it by eye all the time, then it can be allocated Chains from birth.
I don’t think that they necessarily can be recognized as being objectively killer.
Instead, consider the counters:
Pick a deck, figure out its win condition, then determine what kind of cards would ruin it; that’s your Achilles heel deck.
Just now, Derrault said:I don’t think that they necessarily can be recognized as being objectively killer.
Instead, consider the counters:
Pick a deck, figure out its win condition, then determine what kind of cards would ruin it; that’s your Achilles heel deck.
The chances of you running into a deck perfectly set up to counter yours are slim, and most cards that can ruin your day can ruin anyone's day, e.g. Bait and Switch, Library Access, etc.. If a card can only ruin your day because it's situational, then it's objectively less valuable than a card that can ruin anyone's day.
Just now, yangtze said:The chances of you running into a deck perfectly set up to counter yours are slim, and most cards that can ruin your day can ruin anyone's day, e.g. Bait and Switch, Library Access, etc.. If a card can only ruin your day because it's situational, then it's objectively less valuable than a card that can ruin anyone's day.
Example: Deck 1 is amber generation machine (mostly Untamed); wins against decks based around combat (Brobnar, Sanctum, Mars)/card draw (Logos)/board control (Mars, Brobnar, Dis), loses to decks based around capture (Sanctum)/steal (Shadows/Dis)/loss (Brobnar)/play limitations (mostly in Dis)
12 minutes ago, Derrault said:Example: Deck 1 is amber generation machine (mostly Untamed); wins against decks based around combat (Brobnar, Sanctum, Mars)/card draw (Logos)/board control (Mars, Brobnar, Dis), loses to decks based around capture (Sanctum)/steal (Shadows/Dis)/loss (Brobnar)/play limitations (mostly in Dis)
In this situation all three decks would have broadly the same rating, and all things being equal they would all finish a tourney at 1-0.
When it comes to tournament events, the standards need to be more defined:
I am hoping we start seeing actual deck records (either from Keyforge Compendium of the Master Vault) soon, so we can see just what we're dealing with.
11 hours ago, Rabbitball said:When it comes to tournament events, the standards need to be more defined:
- Should it be based on net wins (wins - losses), win percentage (wins / games played), or some combination of these?
- At what point does a deck become "chain-worthy"? 3-0? +3 wins total (117 wins vs. 11`4 losses)? 75% win ratio over 10+ games?
- Should "negative chains" be applied to bad decks? By this I mean "Can a deck be so bad that a deck out of the box should be forced to take chains to play against it"?
- What range of chain values should we have?
I am hoping we start seeing actual deck records (either from Keyforge Compendium of the Master Vault) soon, so we can see just what we're dealing with.
My FLGS has seen two players each buy a case, I cannot compete with players opening 144 decks, we don't need the standards be defined as much as we need the app to give us the chains and either you play the deck or you don't based on what you get.
As far as seeing deck records, how? The app doesn't have that basic function yet, and it is step 1 in any form of chain system.
10 hours ago, Amanal said:My FLGS has seen two players each buy a case, I cannot compete with players opening 144 decks, we don't need the standards be defined as much as we need the app to give us the chains and either you play the deck or you don't based on what you get.
As far as seeing deck records, how? The app doesn't have that basic function yet, and it is step 1 in any form of chain system.
Keyforge Compendium allows people to self-report their game results. Those can be the start of the system if FFG wants a basis for it. Mind you, not everyone is as meticulous as I am about recording, but some results are better than no results. And it's up to FFG as to when (or if) those records get used.
If they are waiting for viable tournament software, the best thing they can do is get their programmers in contact with me. I am out of the programming scene, but I speak it fluently enough to tell a current programmer what needs to happen.
Both tournament goers and casual players need to see a suggested number of Chains from deck birth. In the first case this will make tournaments more fair, and in the second case it will prevent un-fun deck imbalance.
13 minutes ago, yangtze said:Both tournament goers and casual players need to see a suggested number of Chains from deck birth. In the first case this will make tournaments more fair, and in the second case it will prevent un-fun deck imbalance.
I have to disagree. If I opened a deck and saw that I had to immediately play it starting with any number of chains I’d be pretty frustrated. There is absolutely zero proof this needs to happen and the argument is “a should happen now because b is a possibility.” That’s speculation and opinion, nothing more.
If you want to put chains on your decks then you go ahead, I won’t stop you. Page 8, go wild. I’m content to enjoy the game and let FFG take their time to get it right. This creating of alternate accounts to attempt to make it look like a lot of people have a problem with a facet of the game got old last month.
Edited by TheSpitfired1 hour ago, TheSpitfired said:I have to disagree. If I opened a deck and saw that I had to immediately play it starting with any number of chains I’d be pretty frustrated. There is absolutely zero proof this needs to happen and the argument is “a should happen now because b is a possibility.” That’s speculation and opinion, nothing more.
If you want to put chains on your decks then you go ahead, I won’t stop you. Page 8, go wild. I’m content to enjoy the game and let FFG take their time to get it right. This creating of alternate accounts to attempt to make it look like a lot of people have a problem with a facet of the game got old last month.
It's hardly respectful to suggest I'm creating alternate accounts to mislead people, is it? Look at my profile. I joined in '09. That's five years before you, Johnny Come Lately
Page 8 is inadequate, asking players new to the game to sort it out for themselves is an insult, and imbalanced decks will kill the game if FFG doesn't get a swift handle on it.
7 minutes ago, yangtze said:It's hardly respectful to suggest I'm creating alternate accounts to mislead people, is it? Look at my profile. I joined in '09. That's five years before you, Johnny Come Lately
Fair enough, you got me. I just saw a profile with a low post count posting about the same topic that someone else (appearing to do the same thing) posted about 4 days prior and I played a game from Office Space called "Jump to Conclusions." I got the mat out and everything. My apologies for lumping you in. Johnny Come Lately would be a fun name for an Archon deck...but I get the feeling it wouldn't make it past the FFG filter.
So all that aside let's get back to the heart of the matter. Are you seeing a lot of imbalance issues in the face to face games you are playing? As I've overstated, my concern is that people are calling for a change that we don't know is needed - to be fair that's my opinion. My local scene is active but I have yet to see one deck (or one player) run away with it. So obviously that contributes to where my thoughts on the matter fall. If your experience is playing out different I can understand that.
I will still contend that decks should not start with chains. I don't even know that I'd say we could make a case that we have a system (sight reading) that determines a deck is bad. The basic go to right now is "it's already opened and no one wanted it." Now this is completely my own thoughts, but I don't believe there are bad decks. I believe there are finesse decks that take longer to figure out and play with, and I don't think people are giving single decks the time and patience they truly need to discover them. Plus player skill also needs to be accounted for and chaining a deck just on its contents doesn't accommodate that.
I hope that gives a more articulated perspective of my opposing view on this matter.If you want I can come back and throw in my crazy "the deck chooses the player" and staunch "heart of the cards" beliefs too.
"Johnny Come Lately, the Absolved"? You make good points. My own experience? I'm seeing that I'm consistently being competitive with some decks, lots of close exciting games, and consistently getting trounced with one in particular. I haven't bought any random decks yet, and the one that gets beaten up I got cheaply because "it's already opened and no one wanted it". I'm going to keep playing it, because I see it as a challenge along the lines you suggest. However, beyond my skill or lack of it and my decks, I've played against a lot of decks that have massive synergy amongst what can only be described as great cards. We know some cards are comparatively great, right? Bait and Switch, Library Access, etc.. Others become great with the right cards around them in your deck. No-one can deny this. So people with decks with a preponderance of great cards are going to sweep all before them if they are reasonably skilled.
Leave out player skill for now, because there's no accounting for that. Think only of two imaginary and equally-skilled players. My argument is simply that cards can be rated (coarsely, or as fine-grainly as you like depending on the skill and data resources of the rater, but coarsely would work for now), and decks therefore given a suggested rating. Comparison of ratings would yield a suggested number of chains for the better deck. This would, imo, help the casual Keyforger to enjoy the game, and would probably make for better tournaments with a greater variety of decks, where skill would be a greater determinant of success than which deck you brought or pulled.
2 hours ago, yangtze said:Leave out player skill for now, because there's no accounting for that. Think only of two imaginary and equally-skilled players. My argument is simply that cards can be rated (coarsely, or as fine-grainly as you like depending on the skill and data resources of the rater, but coarsely would work for now), and decks therefore given a suggested rating. Comparison of ratings would yield a suggested number of chains for the better deck. This would, imo, help the casual Keyforger to enjoy the game, and would probably make for better tournaments with a greater variety of decks, where skill would be a greater determinant of success than which deck you brought or pulled.
I believe the point that was trying to be made is that you can't just take one deck in a vacuum and assign it chains. If you assign a deck(A) say, seven chains, that could be perfectly appropriate against the deck(B) that it has a 60% win rate against. However, giving it seven chains against deck(C) could slide it to a 40% win rate in that matchup. Preset chains is then just as punishing as the problem you are trying to solve with them, the match is "decided" before the decks are cut.
The chain system is going to be much more appropriate in a higher end play setup where more time is available. For instance, if each player brings three decks, then they bid up chains to pick which decks play. A player driven system requires much less active maintenance. It is very likely that the meta would determine on it's own what the bids should be through third party scores and tools, anyways.
7 minutes ago, AdmiralYor said:I believe the point that was trying to be made is that you can't just take one deck in a vacuum and assign it chains. If you assign a deck(A) say, seven chains, that could be perfectly appropriate against the deck(B) that it has a 60% win rate against. However, giving it seven chains against deck(C) could slide it to a 40% win rate in that matchup. Preset chains is then just as punishing as the problem you are trying to solve with them, the match is "decided" before the decks are cut.
The chain system is going to be much more appropriate in a higher end play setup where more time is available. For instance, if each player brings three decks, then they bid up chains to pick which decks play. A player driven system requires much less active maintenance. It is very likely that the meta would determine on it's own what the bids should be through third party scores and tools, anyways.
I understand the point, I simply disagree with it. The rating of a situational card would be reduced or increased accordingly. E.g. Bear Flute in a deck with no Bears will be rated worthless. It may even attract a negative rating as a dead card. We can all agree on that. A card that is valuable against specific types of opposing cards will have its rating reduced according to the likely % of the time it will be effective. It can be done easily. We might argue over specific ratings, but I'm wiling to bet the rank order of a set of decks rated by such a rating system would closely parallel the rank order of their performance in a best-of-three tournament against each other.
I would love to see an official "out of the box" recommended chain number for decks. Nobody would require you to use them, but it would make it much simpler to play blind decks without having to play 3 in a row with adaptive.
I have 24 extra unopened decks with plans to host my own blind tourneys with friends, but adaptive seems like it might take too long. Things would be so much easier if there was a rough suggestion for starting chains.
It doesn't need to be perfect, just some way to normalize decks a little before playing.
From what it sounded like from the latest Organized Play video they mentioned decks being assigned power levels and also gaining chains from official Chainbound events.
When you go to a tournament like these, this is how you will be able to gauge the strength of certain decks and you will see them get the handicaps applied to them.
Power Levels: These sound like your rewards for playing in and winning events. Your deck is good, so this will affirm it. Those power levels are then used as requirements for future events.
Chainbound: These are where your more competitive players will go to show that their decks can't be stopped, even after being assigned chains from winning previous Chainbound events. You win it all, prove your power, and then get some chains added to your deck. This could be permanent or temporary depending on how many events of these types you play in and win/lose. There still isn't enough information at this time.
For someone to be able assign chains right away, you could implement something on a card-by-card basis but that takes away from being able to just "whack and unwrap"...er, "just grab a deck and play".
If you are worried about losing to the same decks at your LGS in casual tournaments because there is no tracking software to punish those that are winning, you are coming at this game from the wrong angle. In a bring your own deck format, you get time to look at your opponent's decklist before the match. Unless you have played the game for a while and are familiar with the cards, this won't matter outside of knowing that your opponent can't obviously play certain cards if they are not listed. But you also won't know how many chains a deck is supposed to have from that card either.
This is the age of exploration, have fun and sweat the details later. Even if your opponent has 144 decks and you have 3, you still both pick your best and do your thing. They won't know what you have and you don't know what they have until you are both sitting down.
2 hours ago, yangtze said:I understand the point, I simply disagree with it. The rating of a situational card would be reduced or increased accordingly. E.g. Bear Flute in a deck with no Bears will be rated worthless. It may even attract a negative rating as a dead card. We can all agree on that. A card that is valuable against specific types of opposing cards will have its rating reduced according to the likely % of the time it will be effective. It can be done easily. We might argue over specific ratings, but I'm wiling to bet the rank order of a set of decks rated by such a rating system would closely parallel the rank order of their performance in a best-of-three tournament against each other.
Each deck in keyforge is unique, so a unique deck vs a unique deck leads to... a unique situation. Trying to balance the game around various player skill levels to enforce %50 win rates over the entire population drives AAA MOBA developers batty, and they have probably a couple order of magnitudes more resources available (and %100 knowledge of all matches).
Even if such a thing would be possible and effective. My trust is FFG to execute such a system and have it keep up with a game's meta is nil. Doing so also dampens the rush when buying new decks, "Ah! I got this super awesome deck", Scan deck: Starts with two cards in hand, "goes and complains on forums". If certain card combinations dominate for a year, let them. Give the winners a free deck, ban out the "winners" as unplayable in the app, and put tech cards in the next set that neuter the combinations. Or, since we have a "living" rule book, change the rules to make it not work anymore. Keyforge is a unique game (pun intended) in the gaming world, it needs a unique solution.
Either decks will be over nerfed due to their contents, such that players are ripped off. Or they will be under nerfed, and win anyways. It's all going to be anecdotal. So, embrace the anecdote. Make it either "****, I should have bid more chains to avoid that deck" or "Do I take my kick-*** deck to regionals, or save it for Worlds?"(as posited by someone up above).
FFG tends to move at glacial speed to solve problems, but they will get there eventually.