The discord reply limits to 2000 characters. This forum is silent anyway. # 1 @Artibens I'd also play with real players. Because the computer is easy to beat and I can see what decks people are playing. And I actually learnt most of the decks from my opponents. I have to complain that it is really hard to make a deck for this game. Because there are strange restrictions, and there are too many cards too choose from while making a deck. I think I've made about 2 decks all by myself. All the other(more than 10) decks I know are from my opponents. I think this game ranks just like hearthstone. It's definitely not just winrate. When you have a win streak at the beginning of a month, meaning 100% winrate, you're still rank V, isn't it? Actually I would appreciate it if this game has a winrate leader board. Because then I would have some incentive to play. Have you played hearthstone? Rng is controlled there. Google "hearthstone rng" yourself. Hearthstone made the cards so unballanced because they're selling packs for money. And as a consequence, the game play would be very bad if they don't control the rng to make it more "fair". But this game, Age of Rivals, which I think is a much better deigned game than hearthstone, doesn't need to control the RNG to make it fair. Because AoR is more like a chess game than a card game. Almost everything is transparent. The dev is using(at least I think so) RNG controlling, possibly because of: 1. The dev just want to copy every aspect of hearthstone. He's just doing it for fun. 2. The dev wants to reduce the snow-balling effect of this game. That is, when you gain great advantage during one game, then you get shit rng. Why he does that? I think it's because he wanted this game to be more friendly to new players. But after all, the rng controlling thing isn't very bad for us. You just need to play as safe as possible when you are ahead, and know when to take the risk when you're behind. It's actually a good thing, except when you're not aware of it. That is to say, for example, when you're ahead of a game and trying to take a little risk to gain even more advantage, then, BOOM, you're recked by RNG. So, I'd like it to be made clear by the dev officially. But, yeah, I can't contact the dev till now. # 2 @Artibens More cards is definitely not good for the new players. Each single card takes a few games to learn about. And the more cards there are, the less chance they're showing up. This games mechanics is already complex, the UI during the game sucks(not having enough time for players to think carefully), and the game is already fun and playable with only the basic cards. I would say, we shouldn't make the card pool too big, and we don't need to. You talking about sacred relic. First, it's not a good card. You only pick it when you have no choice, right? So most of the time we just don't pick it and it's just like trash hanging around. Even when you pick it, you don't feel that good. If you roll high, you won't be so proud. And if you row low, you might rage quit. I have seen posts complaining getting bad rng with that card. You see? This card frustrates people. And by far, almost all my opponents picking that card lost to me, because they're generally casual players. Few of them, maybe 1 or 2 games, they got high row, and almost wipped my board(maybe with the help of the +2/+1 on round 3). Is that fun? No. And about the Great Council. This deck IS op. Maybe you haven't encountered boozinka yet. He plays this deck and he's very skillful. I can hardly win against him. I once switched to an aggressive tier 1 deck that brings Guerillas(Knock out Infantry and Civic and possibly self), with not bad rng, and still lost. This combo is not fun for the opponent because he has nothing to do with it. No matter how hard he tried to collect cultre points, he'll lose. So he has to go aggro. But that deck has the swap-highest-lowest-attack card to counter aggro. And this combo is unneessary. The game is perfect just without it. It's not easy to predict what your oppenent is playing. The thief rival actually has another form which is aggro. When you play with resource management, your opponent may just play aggro to win. It's very hard to do in reality, especially against a good player. Maybe you have done it, but it's your opponent playing badly. They just want to piece up the combo, instead of knowing what they're doing and making the right choice. And you can't counter it with the cards you mentioned(spymaster, gleeful, mangronels, onagers). I'll analyze one by one. 1. **spy master** is a pretty weak card. If it shows up on his side, he'll pick it to prevent you pick. Only 50% chance, you may pick it. But you probably let go 1 good card for him to pick. And then, only 50% chance, your spy master will show up in round 3. Even if it does show, he may just ignore The Great Council, and pick a, say, 10 culture unit. Does he get harm? Not at all. And it's you that lost a card slot(spy master is not a good card). 2. **Gleeful Destroyer** First, it's not a card good enough to be put into a deck(Nor is spy master above). Even if you picked it, there is about 50% chance that his thief princess is not on the board in round 3. So his Greate Council wil not be insanely high culture. Which means, he can adjust its culture value during the damage distributing process to make it not greater than 6. But your Gleeful Destroyer can be used only once. It will not prevent the combo in round 4. 3. **Mangonels** It only attacks 4. And he can just pick a wall. Mangonels is actually a good card in one of the best decks(the ranged deck). But it's another OP deck that should be nerfed imo. If you're using that OP deck against this OP deck, neither is OP comparing to each other. With just Mangonels itself, it's far from enough. 4. **Onagers** It doesn't work. He can just let you KO his Great Council, and in round 4, he triggers your onagers with a 1 culture ruin, and he still makes that combo and wins. How about that? Onagers is a good card in terms of design, but we don't pick it most of the time. Imagine you have an Onagers and a 10 Culture unit beside. Which do you pick? If you pick Onagers and KO that 10 culture unit in round 3, then he'll probably have that 10 culture in round 4, you're 10 cultures behind in final score. If you pick the 10 culture and let your opponent KO your 10 culture, then you'll have 0 culture in round 3, but probably 10 in round 4. So this time you have 10 cultures ahead! If you make the wrong pick, it's 20 cultures difference. And the right pick isn't obvious at all! Another reason I'm suggesting this change to The Great Council is that, this card is just too weak in its own. When its KOed, its -6 culture which is quite unfair. Most of the time we don't pick Great Council, and even we pick it, it is tricky to deal with this card. When your opponent is aggro(which is most of the time), you need to assign as much damage to it (4 at most), and in round 4, don't pick it and even sell it for 3 golds if possible. When assigning damage with this card on board, the calculation becomes more difficult. In a word, without thief princess, Great Council is a weak and tricky card. Because it's that tricky, I'd suggest it to be a little stronger.

Hello, there is no RNG manipulation in Age of Rivals. I explain how the AI works here: https://darkinertia.com/blog/2017/08/03/the-age-of-rivals-ai-a-behind-the-scenes-look/. The only time the AI has an advantage is during the Campaign levels because the AI tends to have a better deck or some starting advantage. But regular games are completely fair, both AI and multiplayer. Thanks.