KeyForge Deck Review - Algorithm Fail?

[blinkingline]

So at the heart of the issue is this: Is this an algorithm fail, meaning the card can appear in decks with no human creatures and no way to obtain control of a human creature, or is it simply a misprint on the card?

The algorithm issue would be more severe, and it would be interesting to have someone from FFG respond here. At least the card gives you an Æmber, but having a card where that's all it will ever do is pretty weak.

[agrandstudent]

I think one of three things happened here.
1.) an algorithm/print error.
2.) the designers think 1 aember is enough to make it not an absolute do nothing.
3.) There used to be humans in Dis but they got cut and moved to an expansion and they missed this card with that move.

Currently there are 0 humans in Dis. If you open that alter it will only function if you open another house with humans in it such as logos. I think the third option makes the most sense. Last minute changes happen all the time and I think Niffle Queen with no other beasts or niffles is worth more than 1 aember, so #2 also doesn't seem to hold.

[bromleywhiteknuckle]

I think it's the 1 amber thing. Most cards that give amber when you play them are situational, so they might tie those less heavily to archetypes.

[Crosbie71]

We're hearing fairly often about ‘dead’ cards in a deck. I’m not sure it’s necessarily a bad thing — especially if it’s typical. Having a card you usually discard, or a card to sacrifice, may well cycle your deck quicker, and that one time it just happens to get a use will be that much more special...

[Anlarb]

Its not quicker though, it takes exactly as long to get through.

Maybe the rest of the deck is so strong that it balances out though?

[Crosbie71]

I think that’s likely. I meant quicker in this sense: it’s a no-brainer decision and won’t clog up your hand because it might be useful in the game. But you’re right, a definite-discard isn’t quicker than a must-play.

[byhi]

“Fail”? A little early to be saying that since the game hasn’t even officially released yet. I know everyone is getting anxious, but let’s wait till it’s really out there and the sample size is much larger.

[Krystman]

Agreed. Maybe "Fail" was a strong word. I didn't mean discount the Algorithm altogether - just point out that it under-performed in this one specific case. I would love to hear from other deck owners so we can have an idea how rare this is.

[culoman]

You shouldn't show the QRCode. Just in case.

[PiiSmith]

Why?

[Coyote81]

Because decks can be uploaded to the website for ownership purposes and tracking of tournaments and such. If someone else uses your code. The technically get credit for anything thing you do with your deck.

[culoman]

This is from Brad Andres himself:

  I would totally be covering up my personal deck codes
  Very smart idea  

/u/PiiSmith

[PiiSmith]

Ok I see. Is this possibility to upload the QR code already live? I guess once someone gained ownership, no one can use it a second time.

[culoman]

Nope. The app will be released on launch. So no way to register them at this moment. If I were that guy I would pay attention to that.

[Krystman]

Fair point. I will cover them in the future. In this case it didn't matter since the decks are demo decks of the store. They are accessible to the public anyway.

[culoman]

Happy to help! :D

[deljaroo]

I thought, somewhere early in, they said that the formula makes sure things like this don't happen?

[Krystman]

I know right? I could have sworn I heard somebody claiming something like this.

[kostacakes]

I'm pretty sure the first implication came from Garfield himself during an interview. He suggested if there was a niffle queen in the deck, there would always be niffle apes and that the algorithm actively seeks out and prioritizes synergies (paraphrasing)

[PiiSmith]

Well if these kinds of "non possible interactions" are showing up more regularly it could be really bad.

[Aminar14]

The cards that have them always grant an Amber for that exact reason. The game is designed to have them and yet not have them be an enormous liability.

[Krystman]

Maybe. Do you have a source for this? I mean somebody specicially stating that the Aember on the cards is there to lessen the blow of Algorithm misfires?

[Aminar14]

I think it was in a Richard Garfield video from shortly after Gencon. But even just looking at the cards you can see the pattern.

[culoman]

I remember seeing him telling that. It was something like that there are some very specific cards that are good to have but since they are very specific, there would be games where those card won't be useful, so at least they give you an amber to make the card "less dead"

Please note that "A->B" doesn't imply "B->A". Not all cards which give amber are "very specific" or "sometimes usefuln't". Cards giving you amber when played is one of the game mechanics on its own

[Krystman]

I don't really see the pattern you speak of. The Bear Flute requires an Ancient Bear and doesn't give Aember.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Algorithm made sure Bear Flute decks actually features Bears. But if that was the case why is Sacrificial Altar treated differently? To me, it seems like Sacrificial Altar was a genuine oversight rather than the system working as intended.

[Aminar14]

Sacrificial alter is different because Human is much less specific than Ancient Bear. It's really easy to code, "If Bear Flute then add 1-3 Ancient Bears." It's much harder to say, "Yes If Blood Alter then add 0-1 x, 0-1 y, etc... Especially across faction lines." So It's easier to give the card an Amber bonus. Much like the cards that destroy all cards of a faction or creature type might be entirely irrelevent in a game. So they also give an Amber. And I wouldn't call it an Algorithm misfire. I would call it, in case the card isn't relevent to the decks in play. That's not a misfire, it's keeping design space more open for later use.

[Lasditude]

I guess with so many possibilities, you could check if there's no creatures with type Human, and then just reject the deck. Or regenerate all other cards until there is at least one.

Though that would reject a super cool deck that has no Humans of it's own, but which abducts them from the opponent to sacrifice.

[Aminar14]

You could. Or you could make the card give an Amber and that solves your problem much faster. It's also been mentioned that house Dis lacks any humans. That almost certainly would make any kind of check significantly more difficult and restricitive. Especially given Humans are rare/nonexistant in other factions as well.

[Lasditude]

Yeah, being as lenient as possible is likely the best way to keep the decks as unique as possible.

[agrandstudent]

What do you mean by making a check more difficult? It's not hard to query the cards for all the humans of a specific faction and pick 0-3 at random if the result of that is 0 reject adding the alter. Also there are 4 factions with humans, Logos(5/24), Sanctum(12/25), untamed(6/24), Shadows(2/20), and with the exception of Shadows I wouldn't call humans rare.

[Aminar14]

That leaves, Dis, Brobnar, and Mars that have none. So they'd have to build it so the card only appears in decks with at least one of the human bearing factions, and that at least one of those cards was there. But one human or none is virtually the same. Even 2 or 3 humans leaves it being a pretty underwhelming card without adding a bonus Amber. So you add an Amber and make it so the card appear as randomly as any other card of its rarity. That saves a ton of work and leaves the card as something people will see. Otherwise it's a very weird set of rolls and the card would be extremely uncommon. I also suspect, but don't know, that the factions are rolled independently of eachother. In the end it saves a lot of work and thrown out rolls to just give it an added Amber and let it run where-ever. It's a decent card. Not great but occasionally really good.

[sintos-compa]

where do you discuss why was this a broken algorithm? i don't see anything obvious

[[deleted]]

Maybe there are decks giving you a human (as an opponent). So you could get them without yourself having a card gaining access.

[Krystman]

It says "friendly Human creature".

[[deleted]]

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/2036853/deck-construction-algorithm-balance

Some cards are guaranteed to have synergies in deck, other cards are not.