So I don't know if I am the only person who feels like so far AoA feels completely underwhelming but after playing in a couple of sealed events now I definitely feel that way. That feeling lead me to wonder about the SaS ratios between the two sets. Of course it is still early and a more definitive comparison will be able to be made down the road but so far....all I can say is, sheeeesh! Check it out:
 
Metrics for CotA (as of 6/1/19):
Decks scanned - 861,741
Decks scanned that have 80 SaS or higher - 125,617 (14.57%)
Decks scanned that have 90 SaS or higher - 4,640 (.538%)  Less than 1% (this shocked me a bit as it was lower than I had expected)
 
Now lets compare:
Metrics for AoA (as of 6/1/19):
Decks scanned - 41,079 (a little less than 5% of the decks scanned for CotA)
Decks scanned that have 80 SaS or higher - 251 (.61%)  Less than 1% (just slightly more than the ratio found in CotA for decks with 90 SaS or higher!!!)
Decks scanned that have 90 SaS or higher - 12 (.029%)  This is abysmal!
 
To sum it up, so far it seems that my instincts about the "power level" of AoA compared to  CotA is likely right. I realize that the sample of AoA deck scanned is smaller so there is some leeway for that, but I can't imagine it gets too much better. This means that the ratio of decks that are powerful (by the metrics we can measure) in AoA are far inferior to the ratio of decks that are powerful in CotA.
 I know there was a genuine concern from the community that this game may suffer from the "power creep" seen in other games (MTG etc.) but it seems like FFG has gone off the deep end to avoid that and actually managed to do the opposite, so instead of a small power creep, we have what seems like a "weaker creep".
 
What do you all think? 
PS - My idea here isn't to bash or be toxic in any way, I just wanted to back up my opinion with the metrics I found but I am open to other opinions. 

The people with great op decks don't hate it.  It's the people without great op decks who hate it, because now they get stomped by the people who have the op decks.  At least with powerful common cards they stood a chance.

Nope, I have it correct.  Now experienced people with crazy powerful rares provide no chance for new players with the low hanging decks they are most likely to get.  At least new players had a chance when it was easy to get really good common cards in their deck.  Maybe your experience differs, but that's how it turned out at the game shop I go to.  Interest in Keyforge has waned to zero.

In Call of the Archons, "Library Access" and "Bait and Switch" were incredibly powerful cards before they were errata'd.  However, they were commons.  This made it really easy to get new players a decently good starting deck.  This aspect of very powerful common cards should have been carried over to AOA.  These new powerful common cards should have definitely been placed in different houses in the new set, to help spread out the love to other houses.

Instead, FFG decided to errata the old cards and completely get rid of powerful common cards.  This completely changed the dynamic and discouraged new players, because the ability of them to get a good starting deck fell off a cliff.  Unable to compete with people who managed to find the rare "good" AOA decks, the new players stopped wanting to play, and stopped wanting to try the game.

You dun goofed, FFG.  Please bring back extremely powerful common cards to the game. They make it so new/casual players don't get completely stomped every single time.

Nope, I have it correct.  Now experienced people with crazy powerful rares provide no chance for new players with the low hanging decks they are most likely to get.  At least new players had a chance when it was easy to get really good common cards in their deck.  Maybe your experience differs, but that's how it turned out at the game shop I go to.  Interest in Keyforge has waned to zero.

In Call of the Archons, "Library Access" and "Bait and Switch" were incredibly powerful cards before they were errata'd.  However, they were commons.  This made it really easy to get new players a decently good starting deck.  This aspect of very powerful common cards should have been carried over to AOA.  These new powerful common cards should have definitely been placed in different houses in the new set, to help spread out the love to other houses.

Instead, FFG decided to errata the old cards and completely get rid of powerful common cards.  This completely changed the dynamic and discouraged new players, because the ability of them to get a good starting deck fell off a cliff.  Unable to compete with people who managed to find the rare "good" AOA decks, the new players stopped wanting to play, and stopped wanting to try the game.

You dun goofed, FFG.  Please bring back extremely powerful common cards to the game. They make it so new/casual players don't get completely stomped every single time.

In Call of the Archons, "Library Access" and "Bait and Switch" were incredibly powerful cards before they were errata'd.  However, they were commons.  This made it really easy to get new players a decently good starting deck.  This aspect of very powerful common cards should have been carried over to AOA.  These new powerful common cards should have definitely been placed in different houses in the new set, to help spread out the love to other houses.

Instead, FFG decided to errata the old cards and completely get rid of powerful common cards.  This completely changed the dynamic and discouraged new players, because the ability of them to get a good starting deck fell off a cliff.  Unable to compete with people who managed to find the rare "good" AOA decks, the new players stopped wanting to play, and stopped wanting to try the game.

You dun goofed, FFG.  Please bring back extremely powerful common cards to the game. They make it so new/casual players don't get completely stomped every single time.

In Call of the Archons, "Library Access" and "Bait and Switch" were incredibly powerful cards before they were errata'd.  However, they were commons.  This made it really easy to get new players a decently good starting deck.  This aspect of very powerful common cards should have been carried over to AOA.  These new powerful common cards should have definitely been placed in different houses in the new set, to help spread out the love to other houses.

Instead, FFG decided to errata the old cards and completely get rid of powerful common cards.  This completely changed the dynamic and discouraged new players, because the ability of them to get a good starting deck fell off a cliff.  Unable to compete with people who managed to find the rare "good" AOA decks, the new players stopped wanting to play, and stopped wanting to try the game.

You dun goofed, FFG.  Please bring back extremely powerful common cards to the game. They make it so new/casual players don't get completely stomped every single time.

In Call of the Archons, "Library Access" and "Bait and Switch" were incredibly powerful cards before they were errata'd.  However, they were commons.  This made it really easy to get new players a decently good starting deck.  This aspect of very powerful common cards should have been carried over to AOA.  These new powerful common cards should have definitely been placed in different houses in the new set, to help spread out the love to other houses.

Instead, FFG decided to errata the old cards and completely get rid of powerful common cards.  This completely changed the dynamic and discouraged new players, because the ability of them to get a good starting deck fell off a cliff.  Unable to compete with people who managed to find the rare "good" AOA decks, the new players stopped wanting to play, and stopped wanting to try the game.

You dun goofed, FFG.  Please bring back extremely powerful common cards to the game. They make it so new/casual players don't get completely stomped every single time.

That actively goes against a previous ruling that FFG made regarding creatures destroyed simultaneously:
If the active player gets to choose the order of simultaneous things, then they would be able to choose the order so that a creature with a passive ability that "triggers when a creature is destroyed" would be able to be destroyed last (or first) to get the effect they want, but FFG has already said this doesn't happen. FFG needs to clarify their rules and change one of these rulings so that they are consistent. It doesn't help that the rule book doesn't define what a "timing conflict" is.

In your example with Dust Imp and Snib being destroyed at the same time, you use your left hand to do Dust Imp's effect and give 2 aember, at the same time you use your right hand to destroy 2 aember for Snib.  If your opponent doesn't already have aember, then your right hand destroys nothing (because the aember is still in your left hand on the way to entering play). That's what simultaneous means. I see no conflict from Dust Imp and Snib being destroyed simultaneously.
 

That actively goes against a previous ruling that FFG made regarding creatures destroyed simultaneously:
If the active player gets to choose the order of simultaneous things, then they would be able to choose the order so that a creature with a passive ability that "triggers when a creature is destroyed" would be able to be destroyed last (or first) to get the effect they want, but FFG has already said this doesn't happen. FFG needs to clarify their rules and change one of these rulings so that they are consistent. It doesn't help that the rule book doesn't define what a "timing conflict" is.

In your example with Dust Imp and Snib being destroyed at the same time, you use your left hand to do Dust Imp's effect and give 2 aember, at the same time you use your right hand to destroy 2 aember for Snib.  If your opponent doesn't already have aember, then your right hand destroys nothing (because the aember is still in your left hand on the way to entering play). That's what simultaneous means. I see no conflict from Dust Imp and Snib being destroyed simultaneously.
 

That actively goes against a previous ruling that FFG made regarding creatures destroyed simultaneously:
If the active player gets to choose the order of simultaneous things, then they would be able to choose the order so that a creature with a passive ability that "triggers when a creature is destroyed" would be able to be destroyed last (or first) to get the effect they want, but FFG has already said this doesn't happen. FFG needs to clarify their rules and change one of these rulings so that they are consistent. It doesn't help that the rule book doesn't define what a "timing conflict" is.

In your example with Dust Imp and Snib being destroyed at the same time, you use your left hand to do Dust Imp's effect and give 2 aember, at the same time you use your right hand to destroy 2 aember for Snib.  If your opponent doesn't already have aember, then your right hand destroys nothing (because the aember is still in your left hand on the way to entering play). That's what simultaneous means. I see no conflict from Dust Imp and Snib being destroyed simultaneously.