Lightning Bolt

Alright, let's forget about numbers. Why is that a card like Strong Bludgeon is better than this other, Trained Bludgeon? Why distance between them is not just a condition of Rare which is expressed in two extra attacking points?

I'm not five, thanks.

 

I can't be the only person who doesn't understand what you're trying to say. Can you try that again, in proper English?

 

I like to link to my older posts. Hope this one sheds some light: http://forums.cardhunter.com/threads/smithy-build-your-own-items.7275/page-5#post-94708

As other have said before, rarity is not linked to quality. However, some cards have been forced to certain rarity (eg. Strong Bludgeon) so that it's easier to create legendary and epic items. This is mostly true with basic set cards. Newer expansion follow more closely the design principle that more complex cards are more rare.

 

​

What is the difference between these cards? What is the distance between them? Is it measurable? Or not? Questions aside I start: I see two attacking points. Added that the left one is a Common card and the other not, it's Rare. Therefore I conclude saying that the second one is better than the first one. I conclude saying that its Rare rarity gives this card an important advantage over the other one. Trained Bludgeon wasn't born with the aim of being a Rare card. Unlike Strong Bludgeon, it's out of its nature to be even more powerful, truly unexpectedly strategical, or a mix of both. Why am I wrong? What was the mistake I made about comparing them?

 

Quality distance of Trained Bludgeon, Strong Bludgeon and couple of other bludgeon cards:

15 (Amethyst / AAA): (Almighty Bludgeon, monster-only card, so real quality hasn't been set)
14 (Amethyst / AAA-): --
13 (Emerald / AA+): --
12 (Emerald / AA): Pulverizing Bludgeon (& Obliterating Bludgeon, monster-only card, so real quality hasn't been set)
11 (Emerald / AA-): --
10 (Gold / A+): --
9 (Gold / A): Mighty Bludgeon
8 (Gold / A-): --
7 (Silver / B+): --
6 (Silver / B): Powerful Bludgeon
5 (Silver / B-): --
4 (Bronze / C+): --
3 (Bronze / C): Strong Bludgeon
2 (Bronze / C-): Trained Bludgeon
1 (Paper / D+): Able Bludgeon
0 (Paper / D): Bludgeon
-1 (Paper / D-): --
-2 (Black / E+): --
-3 (Black / E): Weak Strike

 

I'm still at a loss.

Yes, Strong Bludgeon is 'better' because it does 2 more damage. However, it costs one more card point when put on an item, which could be the difference between an item requiring a minor token or no token at all.

Its rarity doesn't come into it. By way of example, Mighty Bludgeon (damage 13) and Powerful Bludgeon (damage 11) are both Common rarity, but both are 'better' cards by the above analysis.

 

Item that is harder to get, to find, to hunt, to be dropped. So item's rarity balances its power.

 

For the last time, a card's rarity has nothing to do with its power. If you'd read the link I provided, rather than be sarcastic, or consider the examples I've set out, then you'd have known that.

But as you clearly aren't interested in anything other than pedaling your own mistaken theories, I'm not going to waste any more time trying to be helpful.

 

This conversation is a perfect example of why I think BM made a huge mistake when they made Strong Bludgeon (and Strong Hack) Rare instead of a higher quality Common. If I was in charge, one of the first things I'd do would be a major rebalancing of all the cards to make sure their quality and rarity fit their power and complexity respectively.

 

You happened on a pairing that is misleading you. You'll also find:

Or:


Here we have more examples of cards that are 2 damage points apart, but in these cases not any different in rarity. The simple fact is that rarity in this game is effectively arbitrary much of the time and just because a card or item is more rare doesn't mean it's more desirable, or that I'm any happier to have it. Some rare cards are great to have, but a bad rare card, is still just a bad card (and plenty of those exist).

 

An initial premise of this game was that item rarity wouldn't necessarily match usefulness. In order to build some truly crappy legendary and epic items, the game needed some truly crappy rare cards as well as good ones. Some things have been adjusted over time to be more reasonable, but most of the base set remains as it was.
The plus side is that many great items, such as Bejeweled Shortsword and Silver Healing Ring, are easily obtained commons. This is balanced by legendary items which are sure to disappoint. When the orange glow resolves itself into a Duncan's Chain Cap, it should be a definite downer. (Most common helmets of equal or lower token cost are as good or better.)
Examining the +/- values in Cards.csv will show they are not based upon rarity.

 

And yet, you were not clever enough to realize items are attached to the token system design, which is the fundamental problem as I can see.

 

Further reading about earlier card rarity discussion: http://forums.cardhunter.com/threads/2-suggestions-qualities-and-rarities-in-a-letter.8398/