So I don't know if I am the only person who feels like so far AoA feels completely underwhelming but after playing in a couple of sealed events now I definitely feel that way. That feeling lead me to wonder about the SaS ratios between the two sets. Of course it is still early and a more definitive comparison will be able to be made down the road but so far....all I can say is, sheeeesh! Check it out:

Metrics for CotA (as of 6/1/19):

Decks scanned - 861,741

Decks scanned that have 80 SaS or higher - 125,617 (14.57%)

Decks scanned that have 90 SaS or higher - 4,640 (.538%) Less than 1% (this shocked me a bit as it was lower than I had expected)

Now lets compare:

Metrics for AoA (as of 6/1/19):

Decks scanned - 41,079 (a little less than 5% of the decks scanned for CotA)

Decks scanned that have 80 SaS or higher - 251 (.61%) Less than 1% (just slightly more than the ratio found in CotA for decks with 90 SaS or higher!!!)

Decks scanned that have 90 SaS or higher - 12 (.029%) This is abysmal!

To sum it up, so far it seems that my instincts about the "power level" of AoA compared to CotA is likely right. I realize that the sample of AoA deck scanned is smaller so there is some leeway for that, but I can't imagine it gets too much better. This means that the ratio of decks that are powerful (by the metrics we can measure) in AoA are far inferior to the ratio of decks that are powerful in CotA.

I know there was a genuine concern from the community that this game may suffer from the "power creep" seen in other games (MTG etc.) but it seems like FFG has gone off the deep end to avoid that and actually managed to do the opposite, so instead of a small power creep, we have what seems like a "weaker creep".

What do you all think?

PS - My idea here isn't to bash or be toxic in any way, I just wanted to back up my opinion with the metrics I found but I am open to other opinions.

Imho its still too early to say that the metrics are precise right now and times needed too have the exact score for each new Card in AoA. Give it some time and it will evtl. Balanced out between these two set on the Measurement Platform

where the Guys works "i think" on volunteer base. But the feeling you have between these 2 Sets its not deniable. Game in AoA in our Area ends mostly in Tie breakers and the meta in AoA between the Houses shifted. Imo Mars, Sanctum and Brobnar should be look out for.

Is SAS adjusted for Library Access/ Bait and Switch errata yet? How “accurate” is the SAS rating of the new cards?

I’ve always been sceptic of SAS as a measurement system for deck strength, but aside from that ,how fair is it to compare the two in SAS at this point in time?

That’s not to say you’re wrong, I honestly don’t know yet, just questioning whether the argument your using is fair to AoA decks.

20 minutes ago, Palpster said:

Is SAS adjusted for Library Access/ Bait and Switch errata yet? How “accurate” is the SAS rating of the new cards?

I’ve always been sceptic of SAS as a measurement system for deck strength, but aside from that ,how fair is it to compare the two in SAS at this point in time?

That’s not to say you’re wrong, I honestly don’t know yet, just questioning whether the argument your using is fair to AoA decks.

Yeah, it is true that there is a chance things may not be fully adjusted in terms of SaS, but that being said, I don't know all of the aspects SaS rating uses, I'm only basing this off of what it says currently.

I agree that it will take a bit of time to ensure this is an accurate assessment but my personal intuition was that AoA was weaker overall so after looking at these metrics I think it is likely the case that AoA falls far behind CotA in terms of power. As we continue to see AoA decks added to the database we may see a positive uplift to the metrics but overall I still think this is close to where things will be. It would take some massive changes to revert these metrics for AoA.

4 hours ago, Dantastic24 said:

Yeah, it is true that there is a chance things may not be fully adjusted in terms of SaS, but that being said, I don't know all of the aspects SaS rating uses, I'm only basing this off of what it says currently.

I agree that it will take a bit of time to ensure this is an accurate assessment but my personal intuition was that AoA was weaker overall so after looking at these metrics I think it is likely the case that AoA falls far behind CotA in terms of power. As we continue to see AoA decks added to the database we may see a positive uplift to the metrics but overall I still think this is close to where things will be. It would take some massive changes to revert these metrics for AoA.

I would strongly advise against worrying about any player made up metric for which you don’t have a fundamental grounding in where it is derived from.

I would also think that those metrics are likely to change as people start finding the broken combinations that are replacing Library Access.

SAS is barely an indication of performance. Expected winrate is more precise, but for that the sample sizes are too small right now.

That being said I also don't see myself playing AoA decks much outside of sealed. Even with the nerfs in place my best CotA decks are superior to my best AoA decks. I'll see how this will change with new decks.

SAS has changed at least 5-6 times since I discovered it and I went from loving it to completely ignoring deck ratings. They just aren't accurate. My weakest deck went from a 50 to a 70 in 4 changes.

Also consider that we don't really have a proper assessment of how good cards really are in the new set. I've seen some incredible things out of the new decks. Now take that with a grain of salt as I've only played two games and each was with a different deck for both my opponent and I. However the synergies in those decks was pretty good and very fun to see in action.

My only observation this early in is that there has been next to no aember control in the four decks I've seen. Has that been the experience of others? That could be the one thing preventing this new set from having power creep.

Forget the power level, can we take a minute to discuss the color blindness that has apparently affected the company?

So this weekend at a release tournament, I pulled a deck who's name ended with "The Ruby Queen." The color of the archon? ORANGE! Not ruby at all.

The deck I ended up playing with was Monsieur “Ice-Cold” Méndez and it's archon, was RED! How is that not a blue colored deck???

Then my buddy pulled a deck with "Violet [some more words]" and that archon? SILVER! Not violet at all!

I just cannot stand this affront to my OCD. 😡

1 hour ago, TheSpitfired said:

My only observation this early in is that there has been next to no aember control in the four decks I've seen. Has that been the experience of others? That could be the one thing preventing this new set from having power creep.

There is a lot less immediate aember control, but there's a lot more delayed aember control.

So we have seen and played AoA the last few months. What is the general opinion at this point? Is CotA still overall considered stronger? Or was it just the first weeks that people needed to get used to AoA?

On 10/15/2019 at 6:41 PM, Wodi said:

So we have seen and played AoA the last few months. What is the general opinion at this point? Is CotA still overall considered stronger? Or was it just the first weeks that people needed to get used to AoA?

There still are more strong CotA decks. I don't know whether that is proportional to how much more CotA decks there are in general. AoA has made a significant impact on the meta, though. Specifically Heart of the Forest is a card that you need to have a plan for. Martian Generosity has not yet had its time in the spotlight, but it keeps showing up and it is inevitable that an incredibly strong deck shows up with it. Shadows is basically as strong as ever with Too Much to Protect, Ronny Wristclocks, Swindle, and more.

Would be interesting to look at the stats in the op now that SAS is more stat- and less opinion-based, though.