[The Suggestion] - The numbers here are Hypotetical...
- See Rank as a Deck Budget or Deck Cost.
- Each card (characters included) has a Rank, between 1 and 3, according to it's usefulness/power
Alternative: Characters could have a bigger Rank range, between 1 and 6, allowing the developpers to distinguish characters and make even the weakest character useful in a way by giving him a low Rank.
- Each deck can have a maximum sum of 50 Rank.

[Math]
- A deck has a total of 23 cards (characters included)
- 23x3 = 69 -> Maximum Rank (78 if characters have between 1 and 6 Rank)
- 23x1 = 23 -> Minimum Rank

[Result]
- A deck can only have a maximum average card Rank of ~2.17, wich means you can't fill a deck with Rank 3 cards.
- Acording to the above math, you can only use at most 4x Rank 3 cards in a deck without needing to use Rank 1 cards.
With Max Character Rank = 6: You can either use 4x Rank 3 cards; 2x Rank 3 cards & 1x Rank 4 character; 1x Rank 3 cards & 1x Rank 5 character or 1x Rank 6 character, in a deck without Rank 1 cards

[Conclusion]
Even less need to ban cards or decks - you just wouldn't be able to shove countless Legendary, awesome Rares, insane Uncommons and incredible Commons in your decks.

To dismistify your tainted ideas, you would have ALOT more customization power, not less.
Right now you are forced to use certain cards to be competitive. Little room for inventiveness.
With this, cards being given proper Rank, you would be able to build dozens of competitive decks for each Caste, and would see less mirror matches, would feel more unique, and your genius would be more rewarded.
---

What do you think of the suggested Rank stat?

Awesome!
Could work...
Awful...

Votes totaux: 22

Why?

You (don't) explain it well enough.
I posted my own reasons.
Because I say so.

Votes totaux: 22

Les résultats du sondage sont masqués pour les invités

Dernière modification par Nurvus (31-01-2013 14:10:10)

tsuke1 · 19-09-2011 00:45:17

could work. Reminds me of some of the Yu-gi-oh card games wherein you had a maximum of x points in your deck.

My concern is the ranking system itself. I mean the same group which has failed to bring balance to the game in the first place will be the ones who will be responsible for the balance in this game. Whats to stop them from putting in a +2 / +2 chain card making it legendary or rare and calling it rank 1?

I think the elite system is better. It deals with a smaller subset of cards so its harder to screw up.

iQuit · 19-09-2011 12:05:37

This is what Eredan ITCG need

Dernière modification par iQuit (19-09-2011 12:07:12)

Dracatis · 20-09-2011 01:45:14

It should be fairly easy to do if their crunching their numbers right they should be able to see who is using what in ELO then just say the Top 1/3 used cards is rank 3, ext. I'd be down for a limited ELO like this.

DaRkStAr666 · 20-09-2011 14:09:01

eredan is not ***biiiiipppp*** bip.

MrLordi92 · 20-09-2011 17:04:27

DaRkStAr666 a écrit :

eredan is not ***biiiiipppp*** bip.

Yeah. If it was, the gameplay would be terrible but at least there wouldn't be as many bugs XP

goscar · 20-09-2011 17:13:48

Just no. Your Elite idea was nice but this is taking it too far. Your limiting player interaction just because of decks. The problem is that some cards are just worthless and Feerik won't do anything to change that.

EwokDan · 20-09-2011 18:55:48

would screw up the marketplace even more, with people looking to build the optimum deck with the lowest 'points'.

Plus, with the monkies in charge, the whole score system would be flawed from the off.

MrLordi92 · 20-09-2011 19:59:11

My problem with this is how do you rank a card? Every card has its uses and its niche. Would you be rating it judging by their best performance? Like, Abyssien the Devourer for example. He's obviously best known for being in Zil Mill (As I call it, everyone else defaults to just calling it boring ole 'Discard') But with the more recent releases, he's shown a bit of interaction with Kuraying in a Zil Shadow Mage deck, which may or may not 'get there' depending on it's win ratio (Not sure if anyone's playing this at all, so no way to really tell how good it is.)

So, would you rate Abyssien a 5 because he's a critical player in Zil Mill, a proven winning deck? What about the players who didn't even intend to use him for that? Players who just wanted to play Turned to the Shadow Side on him? Are they screwed because he's good in another deck? This can be said for other characters, too.

This idea of your is quite flawed if I do say so myself. Rating a card on how good it is is completely subjective. Would you rank them like charts rate musicians, by record sales rather than actual talent?

And some examples other than multiplication would be nice, rather than just saying 'Oh, this is a good idea guys, c'mon!' At least you had them in your 'Elite rating' thread.

Dernière modification par MrLordi92 (20-09-2011 20:01:50)

Nurvus · 20-09-2011 20:39:15

Being critical for a deck and being awesome are two different things.

Let's take the version of my suggestion where characters rank from 1 to 6:
[card]Councilor Ishaia[/card] would be Rank 6 - she's just made of win.

[card]Melissandre[/card] would probably be a 4
[card]Keizan[/card] (warrior) might be a 4 or 5.
[card]Anryena[/card] (old version) would probably be a 1 or 2
[card]Fog Snake[/card] would be a 1 or 2
[card]Fog Hydra[/card] would be a 4 or 5

A better example yet:
- Asajiro (+Atk & Def version) would be a 4 or 5
- Asajiro (high spirit, anti-noz version) would be a 3

It's not that hard to give cards a reasonable rank.

I didn't say the idea is perfect.
Even if the team is a little bit off in the Ranking of cards, decks will STILL be alot more fairly matched in the suggested Grade Rooms, and ALOT more balanced and competitive.

In ELO, you'd still fight opponents based on ELO Rating.

Dernière modification par Nurvus (20-09-2011 20:53:46)

Nurvus · 23-09-2011 20:57:44

goscar a écrit :

Just no. Your Elite idea was nice but this is taking it too far. Your limiting player interaction just because of decks. The problem is that some cards are just worthless and Feerik won't do anything to change that.

So what is it that bothers you? The idea of having balanced decks by not being able to stack imba cards in a single deck?

Is it the notion of having currently useless cards coming back to life as "low budget" cards to fill decks that are already saturated with imba cards?

It'd be awesome, I tell you, awesome!

goscar · 23-09-2011 21:01:34

If the problem is imba cards, then the solution is not limiting deck interaction.

Nurvus · 23-09-2011 21:36:35

My suggestion creates compromise.

Currently, when building any particular deck, after choosing the theme, you are limited to a small selection of OP cards.
Choosing anything else is plain stupid.

Let's say you select The Pack, there's essentially the cheap and the expensive version of both the Marauder and Warrior variants.
If you have all The Pack cards:
- Will you pass Bestial?
- Will you pass Lunation?
- Will you pass Dances with Volk?
- Will you pass Fly Off the Handle?

Now fit in the imba cards every ELO deck uses - Maybe Clumsiness, Favor of the Dawn, ANS, Prestige, Void, a Trophy card or another...
How many spots do you have left?

My suggestion, on the other hand, makes all cards a choice.
You have a limit on how much "imbaness" you can fit into a single deck.

Assassination stays good because it's powerful.
Blast becomes good for top decks because it is low budget, and is a way to balance out your deck.

It allows Feerik to create awesome cards, as long as he gives them the appropriate Rank.
It allows Feerik to create weak cards, as long as he gives them the appropriate Rank.

Or am I getting your notion of Deck Interaction wrong?
Honestly...could you explain what you mean by it?

Dernière modification par Nurvus (23-09-2011 21:50:06)

tsuke1 · 23-09-2011 23:09:15

Nurvus a écrit :

My suggestion creates compromise.
Currently, when building any particular deck, after choosing the theme, you are limited to a small selection of OP cards.
Choosing anything else is plain stupid.
Let's say you select The Pack, there's essentially the cheap and the expensive version of both the Marauder and Warrior variants.
If you have all The Pack cards:
- Will you pass Bestial?
- Will you pass Lunation?
- Will you pass Dances with Volk?
- Will you pass Fly Off the Handle?
Now fit in the imba cards every ELO deck uses - Maybe Clumsiness, Favor of the Dawn, ANS, Prestige, Void, a Trophy card or another...
How many spots do you have left?
My suggestion, on the other hand, makes all cards a choice.
You have a limit on how much "imbaness" you can fit into a single deck.
Assassination stays good because it's powerful.
Blast becomes good for top decks because it is low budget, and is a way to balance out your deck.
It allows Feerik to create awesome cards, as long as he gives them the appropriate Rank.
It allows Feerik to create weak cards, as long as he gives them the appropriate Rank.
Or am I getting your notion of Deck Interaction wrong?
Honestly...could you explain what you mean by it?

I do understand what your point is. The only problem is with feerik's design philosophies you will no doubt see an "imba" card thats rank 1 (or whateer the lowest rank is) It is a good idea in theory but requires a very good design team to implement which the game doesnt seem to have.

The elite idea while not as beneficial as this one is easier to pull off and more importantly easier not to screw up.

I firmly believe that due to these factors this ranking idea will have no impact on the game as cards like ANS will still get ranked 1 or 2.

Nurvus · 23-09-2011 23:18:55

Well obviously if they decide to implement Elite or Ranks they'll hire me to do it, so it'll be balanced.

goscar · 23-09-2011 23:23:48

Nurvus a écrit :

Well obviously if they decide to implement Elite or Ranks they'll hire me to do it, so it'll be balanced.

LOL like you know balance....

Eitehr way compromise=/=solution.

iQuit · 23-09-2011 23:32:10

DaRkStAr666 a écrit :

eredan is not ***biiiiipppp*** bip.

At least in "biiiiiippp" bip , the developer doesn't try so hard to suck your money and rich kids don't kick your ass everyday

tsuke1 · 23-09-2011 23:33:19

goscar a écrit :

Nurvus a écrit :
Well obviously if they decide to implement Elite or Ranks they'll hire me to do it, so it'll be balanced.
LOL like you know balance....
Eitehr way compromise=/=solution.

What i dont like about balance is when a card or two gets so good that it gets put in every tourney winning deck. A new start is close to this. It really limits the design space.

I remember in early l5r every deck had 1 imperial gift + 1 inheritance. Didnt matter what theme/strategy/clan you were playing you just had those two cards period. So in effect your playing with 40 card decks but only 38 are customizable.

Nurvus · 23-09-2011 23:39:11

goscar a écrit :

Nurvus a écrit :
Well obviously if they decide to implement Elite or Ranks they'll hire me to do it, so it'll be balanced.
LOL like you know balance....
Eitehr way compromise=/=solution.

Some fish bite any lure, eh?

You're wrong. Compromise is the definition of the solution for Eredan's balance.
My Elite suggestion = Compromise.
My Rank suggestion = Compromise.
Having plenty different viable cards for each kind of deck theme = Compromise.

Currently you make nearly no choices.
Choices are made for you.

If you choose Dragon Knight deck, there's the best strategy for it, limited only by the cards you have access to with your money/crystals.

Any deviation from that best combination of cards is boredom, stupidity or lack of currency.

Q: How do you fix that when some cards are clearly better?
A: Make it impossible to pick them all up with a deck. Give you plenty options, all of wich are viable.

That's a compromise.
That's the ONLY solution.

Banning will (write it down) NEVER fix it.

Dernière modification par Nurvus (23-09-2011 23:42:12)

tsuke1 · 23-09-2011 23:52:14

Nurvus a écrit :

Banning will (write it down) NEVER fix it.

Agree. Not to mention that it ruins your credibility with your player base as all their highly priced cards have now become sharp tissue paper. (whats the equivilent for this on an itcg? )

Nurvus · 01-10-2011 10:53:26

Would be nice to have more diverse opinions on this, good or bad.

To sum this suggestion up, it's a budget for deck creation.
You can put up to 50 points worth of cards, and each card has a certain number of points (1-3 for normal cards, and possibly 1-6 for characters)

Nurvus · 23-11-2011 02:44:34

Could we have some more feedback on this.
Please give it some open-minded thought after reading the first post thoroughly.

Nurvus · 24-12-2011 17:09:44

Any more constructive feedback on this, please take your time to think on the idea and Merry Christmas.

I made some changes to the original idea, to make it clearer and structured.

goscar · 25-12-2011 02:31:45

Nah still don't like this because some cards are just need to make a deck work and this rank idea would just ruin some decks. Again the solution is not to limit cards but make cards more balanced.

Also stop bumping your dead threads. I doubt the devs are look at them any more.

MrLordi92 · 25-12-2011 03:30:28

goscar a écrit :

Also stop bumping your dead threads. I doubt the devs are look at them any more.

+1 people aren't commenting on them because we don't really care anymore.

It's great that you come up with these ideas that try to make the game better, but you need to stop shoving them down our throat and bumping them. At some point, people just stop caring.

Eredan's World

Annonce

#1 18-09-2011 19:11:40

Card Stat - Rank

#2 19-09-2011 00:45:17

Re : Card Stat - Rank

#3 19-09-2011 12:05:37

Re : Card Stat - Rank

#4 20-09-2011 01:45:14

Re : Card Stat - Rank

#5 20-09-2011 14:09:01

Re : Card Stat - Rank

#6 20-09-2011 17:04:27

Re : Card Stat - Rank

#7 20-09-2011 17:13:48

Re : Card Stat - Rank

#8 20-09-2011 18:55:48

Re : Card Stat - Rank

#9 20-09-2011 19:59:11

Re : Card Stat - Rank

#10 20-09-2011 20:39:15

Re : Card Stat - Rank

#11 23-09-2011 20:57:44

Re : Card Stat - Rank

#12 23-09-2011 21:01:34

Re : Card Stat - Rank

#13 23-09-2011 21:36:35

Re : Card Stat - Rank

#14 23-09-2011 23:09:15

Re : Card Stat - Rank

#15 23-09-2011 23:18:55

Re : Card Stat - Rank

#16 23-09-2011 23:23:48

Re : Card Stat - Rank

#17 23-09-2011 23:32:10

Re : Card Stat - Rank

#18 23-09-2011 23:33:19

Re : Card Stat - Rank

#19 23-09-2011 23:39:11

Re : Card Stat - Rank

#20 23-09-2011 23:52:14

Re : Card Stat - Rank

#21 01-10-2011 10:53:26

Re : Card Stat - Rank

#22 23-11-2011 02:44:34

Re : Card Stat - Rank

#23 24-12-2011 17:09:44

Re : Card Stat - Rank

#24 25-12-2011 02:31:45

Re : Card Stat - Rank

#25 25-12-2011 03:30:28

Re : Card Stat - Rank

Pied de page des forums