#544718
Looking only from my side of the table (I think it's not too hard to calibrate for the opponent's influence on the game -- which is often very different between games), and having tried quite a broad range of different quality decks in just a few years, my experience is as follows.
The higher the quality of a given deck, e.g. the more competitive it is according to current standards, the more each game feels like the last. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, per se. But it seems that quality here means adaptability to circumstances -- and therefore performing optimally under all of those circumstances.
The older, easier, or "worse quality" the decks get -- with my own "fun"-emphasized playgroup environment, or my redundant card stack festival meadow trash decks, as extremes -- the less predictable a game is. Which makes for more epicness, hilarious moments, and diversity on my side of the 'line. "Play 1 draw 1 fly beam solve" allows for more variety in situations. But less consistency. And in OP, consistency is rewarded.
And I've said it before -- I like both these sides of the 1e spectrum. I lived for years without the second (consistent performance), and I still loved the game. So I wouldn't want to miss the first (luck-based=unpredictable), at all.
The CoA starters, I feel, are somewhat in the middle of the spectrum; and, while wholly different, my Impulse Speed format decks also clock in at the median between predictable and diversity. And I can appreciate those games, too.
(I think I must admit I like games that don't do away with the unknown, and the influence of chance, a bit better than those with high quality, oiled, well-running machines.)
Can'tDriveFactorFive wrote:My brain always tries to read your name as "Sudden Qapla'!"