Discussion in 'Card Hunter General Chat' started by quixote, Mar 18, 2018.
According to Vakaz's Item Creator Dangerous Maneuver has 0 card points, but Walk has 1. Why?
Because of the possible 3 point piercing damage. Most people would agree that dangerous maneuver is an objectively better card than walk, but when BM have worked out the card lists, that's where they've put it.
Sprint (move 6) is a silver while wild run (move 8) is paper, because you discard a card. Obviously, the addition of lucky charm as well as officer harness has made wild run a lot more viable, because losing one of those still leaves you with a 'full hand'.
I get you feel aggrieved by the lightning bolt thread, but you're nitpicking tiny details of the game to try to make a point. BM do balance changes when it's apparent that certain strategies are making the game less fun: cold attacks used to leave the target with 0 moves, accel time and firestorm used to affect the entire board, nimble strike used to be fly 4, etc.
All games suffer from tiny bumps in the rules. The best properties in Monopoly are the red and orange groups, because of the jail. Should we do a balance change to make them cost more? Most people are just happy to play the game.
Both Fly and Scamper are at 9 points (gold). Charge and Brutal Charge are both at 3 points.
Card balance has some issues, but luckily most of the overall game balance happens at the item-level. So the bigger question is, should Hawkwind's Moccasins be nerfed?
You may use another Thread for that, please.
You suggest design is the aspect that establishes its score. What would you say is left to make Dangerous Maneuver a rare card?
Multiple people in the Lightning Bolt thread have already thoroughly explained the role of rarity. Maybe if you actually read through those explanations you would find the answers you seek.
There is not a role, there is a nature. A rol implies deliberated mechanics or actions, something we can see related to effects designed for card families or for specific cards.
Dangerous Maneuver is rare since its potential self-damage adds an element of complexity. It is a paper+ card because its perceived value is rather low, the potential self-damage is not enough to offset the potential self-damage so it's valued lower than a run. Players however know better than that and value the extra movement more than the potential-self damage and realize it is ahead of the power curve for paper+ cards.
If the point of this thread is to mull over card qualities rarities then there's not much more to be said than what has already been said. Rarity represents the overall perceived complexity of the card while quality represents the overall perceived usefulness of the card.
Some cards fall above or below the power curve for their assigned quality, this is a intentional design choice to reward the player for figuring out what cards are above the power curve and properly capitalizing on them.
Some cards fall above or below the complexity curve for their assigned rarity, this is an intentional design choice so the developers can make items Epic or Legendary without having to clog them with complex cards as well as Common and Uncommon items with some complexity to them.
Cards assigned solely to monsters should not be factored into these considerations. The value for monster cards exist to influence the AI's preferences when discarding cards at the end of their turn. Monster card rarity exists for the sake of flavour so exotic monster cards can be rare.
Whether you agree with these design choices is another matter altogether, but there's not much to discuss about how the system itself works.
Perfect. You could not explain that better. However, this is a casual, simple and funny game. Its focus group are children and its friendly interface is aimed on that direction. Why would developers want it to be that much complex?, and I'm talking about just for understanding its rules.
I used the example of Monopoly as a game marketed to children that also has hidden complexities (don't buy utilities, do everything you can to get the orange and red property groups).
Complexity and depth is the only way that the devs can keep players long term. I've been playing for 3.5 years and still haven't reached the bottom of what is possible - there are builds that 'work', and when you get bored with that you can try developing your own 'fun' builds, as Rinco did with his pathfinding/ancient grudge elf wizards. I just tried a walpurgis build in chess; it didn't work in terms of win %, but it was fun to mess around with, and with a couple more items that I'll be hunting for before the next chess rotation, it may be more consistent and therefore more viable.
I really do think you like arguing for arguments' sake. It's okay to be wrong sometimes. It's how we learn.
Ok, it doesn't matter.
I think that comparing a dangerous maneuvre (cost 0) to a dash (cost 4) is almost like comparing a quick run (gold) to a flank move(bronze) , since you should use it to go far to opponent or range 2 at least, both flank move and dangerous maneuvre can be used, with a little cost. The real problem maybe is that you can use a reliable mail to take only 1 damage as extra cost, maybe with that is too little. Other armor, even enchanted harness, risk you to take full damage.
Maybe making dangerous move deal 5 damage or making damage penetrating can fix it, since taking an useful square can have more value .
There's an important distinction between Quick Run/Flanking Move and Dangerous Maneuver/Dash, the former has a conditional benefit (gain cantrip if X) while the latter has a conditional drawback (take damage if X).
Someone once made a compelling argument in the ingame world chat about how a lot of hokey card qualities come from the fact that the card valuation system alternatively overestimates and underestimates the conditional benefits and drawbacks of cards and how this correlates with card quality.
It's how you wind up with cards like Raging Strike, which is obviously terrible since its conditional drawback is too difficult to mitigate and too overbearing if you don't, but would theoretically be a good pick for a deck that somehow avoids taking damage altogether, such as in an Impenetrable Nimbus or Force Field deck. This high potential usefulness is why the card is bronze valued and not paper, the problem is that this theoretical deck would probably fail and crumble in practice. Another card would be something like Soothing Darkness, it has a powerful upside and a conditional downside so it'd be very good to use on a character who won't be playing any move cards, but since positioning is just that crucial to CH it usually just winds up being too much of a hassle to deal with the downside. You'll probably be better off using a Trained Bludgeon or Greater Heal instead.
A lot of seemingly terrible cards have theoretical synergies like this, but in the end it's the conditional drawbacks that are easily mitigated or don't matter much that get used. It's why cards like Combustible and Creature Of The Night are amazing for so many SP modules, their drawbacks are meaningless when nobody uses fire/silver attacks and you still get to draw a new card.
The problem is that you can't use a deck with lot of parry since any spark even the weakest can deal you super damage Only advantage of the raging strike is that the opponent may not know that you have it in hand, but with only 3 char in a team is easy to guess, and there is no use to save in hand a 7 damage attack when there are usually gold card to save end of turn, so usually you will send attacker melee where can be damaged, a range 3 throwing attack would be more suitable or a team with about 10 char would give you more room to hide it.
Soothing darkness can work like an hover, allowing you to stay in a square with stone spike on but when it happen an hover is more suitable.
Even a 4 damage strike that is a paper card is good as a raging strike, since you need to be hit only 1 time to compensate the +3 damage you can deal (and you can even be blocked so there is no reliable +3 damage for you also. Maybe for an unblockable strike i would agree that bronze quality is worth , i mean if the cost/effect was similiar with an unblockable strike the extra damage would be good.
Yes in SP you can build any exploitative deck, no need to build a balanced deck in SP since AI can't exploit you.
A quick run has the real advantage of allowing an all out attack at the right time, flank move allow you to surpise attack only with impaling stab, so since 18 damage is not an istant kill it is a different card. But of course we are comparing a bronze to gold here so it is right to have a big difference
Separate names with a comma.