I think if I remember the stated goals from the “Sirlin on Game Design” podcast correctly, it was something to effect of
A) Define a “well balanced matchup” as being no more favored than 6.5-3.5 for either side in a 10-game series of two expert players, where ideally the majority are 5.5-4.5 or 5-5 straight up
B) All Mono vs mono should be well balanced, with perhaps one or two exceptions being 7-3
C) No “sane” multi should be worse than 3-7 or better than 7-3 against any mono (of course, intentional anti-synergy multis are expected to be worse than 3-7 in many matchups)
In other words, “no sane decks (especially the designed mono-decks) should sit down at the table and already be highly likely to lose the game before it begins”, where highly likely to lose the matchup is 75% or more games in that matchup.
I don’t think that’s the case.
I think PPA might be 7-3 or better against most / all monocolors.
I think Necro/Blood/(Truth or Fire) might be 7-3 or better against most / all monocolors.
I think (Necro or Demon)/Strength/Growth or Growth/Strength/(Necro or Demon) might be 7-3 or better against most / all monocolors.
As for mono-colors, I think Blue vs Black specifically is a 8-2 or 9-1 in favor of the Black player. I recognize that’s a bold claim to make, and by no means am I sure I’m right (I’ve played a lot but I wouldn’t call myself an expert. I miss lethal damage an embarrassing amount of times).
I’ve played 15 or so games of Black vs Blue though, against multiple opponents (but mostly with @Youngbuck), with P1/P2 flip-flopped, on both sides of the matchup. It is VERY hard for Blue to get any kind of opening against early Vandy / Dark Pact pressure. Oni and Tower are basically required early, Law Tech 2 stall with Scribes and Insurance Agents to try and get off a lawbringer gryphon, with Free Speech drawn at opportune times to stave off Metamorphosis. I think that’s the only Blue win we managed, and it was with some variant play from the optimal Black play we found. See below:
Blue vs White and Black vs Purple are better balanced mono matchups than the ones boxed as expansions, and I at one point advocated for the expansions to be boxed as such (mootly, they’d already been finalized, and I didn’t have as much evidence of Black v Blue being so tilted at the time anyway).
Blue vs Purple I just got done playing 5 games of, and that actually seems to heavily favor the blue player (it won all 5 games, see below link).
Take all this with a grain of salt. It’s way too early to know much of anything for certain, hardly anyone is good enough at the game to be considered expert (I’d only nominate EricF myself, with nothing but respect for the other PbP tournament regulars). A lot of current results are skewed by beginner mistakes.
The game is still a lot of fun even with two experienced and thoughtful players in a seemingly skewed matchup. I have fun w/ that Blue v Black matchup and welcome any Blue player to try and beat me on Black, and I still get a kick out of trying the Blue side once in awhile myself. Glutton for punishment I suppose ^_^.
It’s pretty unreasonable to expect a game with this many unique cards to totally avoid some heavily skewed matchups. Overall, the game is really beautifully balanced and I come to this forum pretty much every day to play or spectate because it’s a really fun and interesting game. It’s certainly light years ahead of MtG and Hearthstone, for my money, and deserves to be treated as such. I want it to be a highly successful game that many people play for a long time. But I don’t think it was a universal success in the “you can’t lose before the game starts just because of the matchup” department. I’ve definitely looked back on games where I felt like I knew exactly what my opponent was going to do, was proven right, and still couldn’t find an opportunity for strong counterplay.
I’m open to the idea that I’m just bad at the game though 