It’s good to see Axiom’s version of Haven back on the mend with an errata in the mid-season patch update, posted March 21. While I would’ve preferred some much larger changes (with several admittedly very wild suggestions), I’ll say up front that it’s smart for the Equinox team to make smaller, slower modifications for the overall health of the game.

It’s helpful for both new and older players alike to know that huge swaths of cards won’t be changing every few months. Also, with the Tumult Championships coming up, many players are looking to test and settle their deck options for competitive play. For many in the U.S., it will be their first chance to play Altered competitively in any real-life setting (if there’s one within driving distance).

I also appreciate the introduction of an official watchlist, which will help players get an understanding for where changes might happen in the future, rather than feeling caught off-guard. I want to give credit to the team for trying to maintain a stable playing environment despite pressures from players and markets alike. I want to give some praise as well for how the patch was released, from date announcement to preview to full release. Using a timeline like that can go a long way toward supporting players who are anxious about being surprised by big changes with a young game. Compared to the release of the first patch prior to the release of TBF, this was a huge help, and I appreciate that communication and predictability.

Missing the mark

I want to give that credit, because I have almost nothing else positive to say about this patch.

It’s an enormous disappointment that the Foundry Armorer and Gericht uniques were not released from suspension from errata with this patch. It’s frustrating given that in the post that suspended them, the team seemed to know which were at issue and (in the case of Gericht) what needed to be done. It’s possible that these changes ended up being more complicated than expected, but at least from an outside perspective, it feels tough to believe they still need additional work. Other than noting “We’ve found an errata,” if you’re a player who hasn’t been able to use your uniques for months, you still have no idea when you might be able to again.

I’m also very disappointed in what this update says about Equinox’s view of the current player experience, especially on Board Game Arena. Most of that comes from the data shared at the top of the article as well as the feedback from Charles Wickham, lead game designer for Trial by Frost.

Charles says he’s “very satisfied with how Trial by Frost has shaken things up! The set has brought noticeable changes to decklists and opened up a host of new strategies.”

Current faction and hero playrates show a single hero outpacing two full factions.

We get a breakdown of the heroes as they’re played on BGA tracked since the release of TBF. One of the things I’ve appreciated most about these types of posts from the Equinox team is that they tend to be data-heavy in explaining why design choices are made. It’s one of the reasons I’ve continued playing; even if I don’t agree with their decisions, I can at least see the lines they’re tracing.

That’s missing here. Yes, we can see that Yzmir gets the majority of play at 20.3% (considering their deck options were the most refreshed with TBF, that’s no surprise). We can also see that Sigismar is the most played hero at 14.3% overall. But we don’t have any context. How does that compare to the months before the release of TBF? Did TBF actually shake up the meta in a meaningful way? It’s great to know which heroes are played the most on BGA, but who wins most often? How often are cards on the watchlist showing up in winning decks (like how we got information on how often Haven was showing up in winning Axiom decks)? That information isn’t shared.

What data is shared in the patch notes tells me that if I’m a current BGA player and I log on for a game or so, I have roughly a 25% chance (Sigismar at 14%/Afanas at 10%) of being matched up with the current most difficult decks to beat in the meta. It means that a single hero (Sigismar at 14%) is getting equal or greater play than two full factions (Lyra at 14%, Axiom at 11%). It means that I have a 63% chance to never see a hero who isn’t the top played hero in their faction altogether. That’s a player experience that Charles describes as “a solid place right now.”

He says there are lots of strategies being tried, but looking through the winning decks on 39cards.com (believe me, I know, I’ve been writing up the recaps), regardless of which hero it is, the winning TBF deck generally heavily prioritizes cards that cost 1-3 mana while providing versatility in card advantage, tokens and removal, primarily. There aren’t multiple varied “build big” or “mana ramp” or “permanent investment” archetypes currently challenging the top decks. I understand that other heroes have won a handful of tournaments from Sig and Afanas, but even the ones that do win against them are using a similar strategy. I am certainly not saying Sig and Afanas are unbeatable. Just that even to compete with them right now, you generally have to play the same game but better and luckier. That’s not variety in competitive gameplay strategy. It’s barely a variety in team color. It’s encouraging to see some of those cards showing up on the new watchlist, but how do they not have enough data to make a move at this point on some of these cards that have been the hinge point for so many dominant decks since the game’s launch last September?

Looking for answers

I understand that there’s more to the game than winning, and that there will always be a shifting “leading” and “losing” faction in every meta, in every set. I want to be clear that I am not asking for perfect balance, as that would be impossible in a game like this. But I do think it should be a major goal. Seeing one or two heroes outspeeding full factions in play seems to me like a problem, not something I would call solid.

But believe me, casual play with friends locally is the main thing I look for in Altered (shout-out to the Northeast Ohio players). But for most (notably in the struggling U.S. market) players, BGA is the only option for play within multiple hours’ drive. What’s the pitch to new players looking to test the game out on BGA right now, especially in places where they don’t have access to a friendly community? How many U.S. players are having a poor experience playing a non-meta deck, running into the same 2-3 decks (flavored slightly differently) on BGA, who will look at this patch and think: “Oh, this is the experience that Equinox wants me to have? I can find better things to do with my time.”

I’m looking forward to the upcoming AMA on March 31 at 6:30 CET, where Charles and Eric Dieulangard, Equinox chief marketing officer, will team up to respond to community questions related to the state of the game. I’ll be looking to ask a few, along the lines of:

• How do you expect this patch will affect player experience, especially on BGA?
• What are the win rates for each hero on BGA in the TBF timeframe? Do you consider those balanced?
• Do you consider the game to be balanced effectively when one hero (Sig at 14%) is getting played the same or more than two full factions (Lyra at 14%, Axiom at 11%)?
• Do you think it’s a positive player experience on BGA for players to run into the hardest decks in the meta for a quarter of all matches (Sig at 14%, Afanas at 10%)?
• What other deck strategies are you seeing that aren’t a heavy focus on 1-3 cost cards?

I’m sure I’ll have others, but I feel those are among the most important. Because while I do appreciate slow, structured changes to the system, this patch left me with many more questions than answers.