Just a quick personal opinion.

[Terran]

tl;dr below if you don't want to read word spaghetti.

I've played three runs now (outside of the tutorial) and won two of them, (albeit on normal, which, honestly, is barely scratching the game), but I already notice a small annoyance with how the characters you choose to play as start out.

Their decks already feel like they were specifically tailored to play in a way - By that I mean, for easiest example, the Rogue. Whether you start as Bleed or Blade, that's just...how you play the run. If I, say, find a rare card that's good for the Blade rogue, why would I take it as bleed? I'm not double-dipping into stacking bleed and applying combo (Though if I was, I suppose that'd be a benefit?), but instead I'd just go for a lesser card that buffs the, like, 10 cards I start with that apply bleed in some way.

For another game's example, let's say Slay the Spire. Each character has a unique set of cards you can find, but their starting decks are very very simple. You get attacks, you get blocks, and then you get 1 or 2 more unique cards - But even those are very "Vanilla". I.E applying Vulnerable as the Ironclad, or Weak as the Silent.

I think I prefer Vault of the Void's mechanics overall more than StS, but I don't like how it feels like I'm just playing the same deck over and over again. Of course, this is on ME - I COULD be taking just whatever card looks cool, but without proper synergy it feels like the game punishes you greatly - Hence being able to plan out your route beforehand, making sure you know what cards you'll get on the way, e.t.c.

It just boils down to every starter card being something class-specific. These ones give you a bleed attack. These ones give you an extra attack that benefits from combo. Why would you go out of your way to alter that deck when its basically made for you?

Instead of a "More or less blank slate", you're starting with something already set up for you and expanding/replacing. Sure, its fun, and the game is still enjoyable regardless, but it just feels incredibly railroaded.

Using Slay the Spire as an example again, let's say early on you get a rare or uncommon card that does something interesting. Now you can grow your deck around that. Maybe you got a "Deal damage in regards to your amount of block" or a card that benefits greatly from strength, and so, you build that deck as you go through.

Which is different, I guess. This isn't a complaint, I hope it doesn't sound whiny, and even if Vault of the Void stays how it is I'll still enjoy playing it. But it'd be a lot of fun to have a bit less guiding rails and a bit more...Randomness to the feeling.

Whether that's a character that starts as more of a blank slate ("Grug the Barbarian, idiot extraordinaire, blocks good bashes good but isn't very special to start with"), or just a general shift in mechanics...I'm not sure.

Sorry for the long-winded write-up, but I really figured I wanted to give my opinion while the game is still in the process of being created. I enjoy it a lot, and maybe I'm entirely alone in this opinion. Thanks to anyone who read all of this.

tl;dr: Character starting decks feel too railroaded, why pick up non-bleed cards or things that synergize with Bleed if you're playing as that deck with Rogue? Instead of "Building" a deck as you go along, replacing generic blocks/strikes/etc, you're just upgrading your starter, and runs all seem to feel the same unless you drastically screw yourself over intentionally. Why pick that rare card that doesn't synergize at all? You won't have time to replace your deck to support it.

[Dabor]

Tbh, picking up Bleed cards in Blade is a really good idea. It helps a lot vs long Elite fights, and many strong Bleed cards synergize well with stuff Blade uses - That'll Sting is great with the Rage you otehrwise use mostly in Blade, and anything that Combos is pretty strong. Unless you're depending heavily on rage - which is far from a majority of all blade runs - dropping a combo'd bleed attack to Bleed 30 an elite on turn 2 is likely to be a really good deal.

This definitely isn't a *rare* view, although as many people enjoy how functional the starting decks are as those that feel bad there's a bit less feeling of exploration due to starting out pretty strong.

But I can say, at least on higher difficulties, it is a really good idea to take good cards from the "other side." A decent Bleed source certainly beats having a 7th slash in your starting deck, especially when it comes time to tanky solo enemies in longer fights where Blade's lack of scaling is liable to peek through.

[Terran]

Originally posted by Dabor:

Tbh, picking up Bleed cards in Blade is a really good idea. It helps a lot vs long Elite fights, and many strong Bleed cards synergize well with stuff Blade uses - That'll Sting is great with the Rage you otehrwise use mostly in Blade, and anything that Combos is pretty strong. Unless you're depending heavily on rage - which is far from a majority of all bleed runs - dropping a combo'd bleed attack to Bleed 30 an elite on turn 2 is likely to be a really good deal.

This definitely isn't a *rare* view, although as many people enjoy how functional the starting decks are as those that feel bad there's a bit less feeling of exploration due to starting out pretty strong.

But I can say, at least on higher difficulties, it is a really good idea to take good cards from the "other side." A decent Bleed source certainly beats having a 7th slash in your starting deck, especially when it comes time to tanky solo enemies in longer fights where Blade's lack of scaling is liable to peek through.

I'll definitely need to play more to formulate a proper opinion, so, thanks for the reply. It still doesn't change the sort of end result of the decks just feel pre-determined to me. I mean, if every basic Attack card inflicts a bleed, its pretty clear what the deck relies on mainly. Instead of, say, (using a previous example I made again) getting a rare card and starting to balanced around that.

Though having it free to swap out cards in your deck/pool is a blessing and really refreshing, rather than relying on rare gimmicky "Remove a card" events a la other games. But, well, again, I need to play more, and try out the harder difficulties and the other characters, though they look a bit complicated for my poor unga bunga caveman brain.

[ElixirMixer]

Absurd to play 3 normal runs and write an essay about the game's design

[Terran]

Originally posted by Elixir Mixer:

Absurd to play 3 normal runs and write an essay about the game's design

Not quite absurd. I looked at the characters' starts and I saw how the decks work, (and played the first one), and I compared them to another game in the genre - Also, an essay? Lord, I fear for the children nowadays if a few short, spaghetti paragraphs is considered an "Essay". Our future is truly "Zoomed"...

[Kitsunin]

It's pretty absurd. It's like saying Monster Train isn't a deep game when you've only beat it on Covenant 0. I use Monster Train as my example because its lowest difficulty is even easier than StS's.

The experience at Impossible+ is wildly different. Just because unlike other games of the genre, your starting cards aren't complete trash, doesn't mean there's no variance.

[Terran]

Originally posted by Kitsunin:

It's pretty absurd. It's like saying Monster Train isn't a deep game when you've only beat it on Covenant 0. I use Monster Train as my example because its lowest difficulty is even easier than StS's.

The experience at Impossible+ is wildly different. Just because unlike other games of the genre, your starting cards aren't complete trash, doesn't mean there's no variance.

Does your starting deck change in Impossible+ difficulty, then? I like starting with one bonus mastery card.
Or, does it add new cards to the pool?
Change the effects of existing ones?
I'm pretty rough at card games since I tend to get greedy and not plan out ahead of time, so upping difficulties in said sort of games is a tough call for me. But I really like that, at least for what I See, it looks like every run is winnable so long as you play correctly. There's no RNG to ruin you.

[Kitsunin]

Does any of that change in StS? No, but you find that the strategy considerations and variability of decks is quite massive. And the game gets deeper and deeper as it pushes you harder.

[Terran]

Originally posted by Kitsunin:

Does any of that change in StS? No, but you find that the strategy considerations and variability of decks is quite massive. And the game gets deeper and deeper as it pushes you harder.

Er, yeah, but that's not what my complaint is about. Its about how the decks just feel like they're set in a specific way (Bleed strikes, benefit-from-bleed defend), e.t.c. A moot point otherwise.
I'd like to see a start that doesn't have a specific characters' unique ability and starting deck have such specifics. Maybe a jack-of-all-trades class? Dipping into everyone's cards?
Slay the Spire is similar anyways. Ironclad is either about big Strength or building Block, so that's not really any different from one of the characters here. But you DO start with a much more neutral deck, rather than selecting a "Class" specialization of that character.
Its not much of a complaint and I said again and again it won't change my enjoyment of the game, but, if I have any speaking rights as a customer I'd like to speak them and see if it improves things a bit for me.

[ElixirMixer]

I just don't know why you feel like your opinion is at all valuable or worthwhile. You posting it means you want other people to see it, but, again, absolutely worthless.

[Terran]

Originally posted by Elixir Mixer:

I just don't know why you feel like your opinion is at all valuable or worthwhile. You posting it means you want other people to see it, but, again, absolutely worthless.

Huh. Well, I wouldn't know why yours would be either, my cartoon child pedophile picture friend.
Regardless, thanks for the input.

[ElixirMixer]

9 outta 10 people reading this thread will think you're a clown

[Terran]

Originally posted by Elixir Mixer:

9 outta 10 people reading this thread will think you're a clown

I'm not sure why you're wasting your time replying to something like this, when you clearly don't have any sort of intellectual input?
I mean, alright, fair enough. Thanks for the BUMP.

[Dabor]

Gonna go ahead and lock this. Elixir, please be nice.

Feeling a bit railroaded into archetypes is a feeling plenty of people get and is a reasonable thing to bring up. Playing another 50 runs might show someone a lot of opportunities to switch out of their starter, but it won't change that biased starters *exist* and that that has some impact on the feeling of deck customization.