Card value point system project

[jacqui]

100% of the time? Only if everyone makes decks where their choices are based on some overall value as opposed to specific value in their specific deck for a specific meta. Not everyone does choose their allies based on overall value.

Can you actually point to a competitive deck that opts to use Brutalis outside of COTC? Under the assumption said deck's primary goal is to win?

[FDL]

100% of the time? Only if everyone makes decks where their choices are based on some overall value as opposed to specific value in their specific deck for a specific meta. Not everyone does choose their allies based on overall value.

Sure.

I guess my point was that corner cases don't really cut it. Karash isn't strictly better than Brutalis if you consider every possible interaction, but for the vast majority of the relevant situations that you will encounter in an actual game of SE, he is. Thus, despite bot being better in every possible case, Karash's apparation rate will be much, much more higher than Brutalis'.

A metagame in which Brutalis is more represented than Karash could exist, but we haven't lived in that world since DP released.

[Umbra7]

Apologize if you feel that way. It was a observational statement based on your statement that Puwen is used more than Brutalis, thus "validating" your point schematic. However, if you were an old player who was around when the comparison was relevant, you would know that Puwen was not used more than Brutalis. They were both the go-to 2cc drops for ally based decks for humans and shadows. Also, Carniboar also has the same point value as Brutalis according to your schematic. But again, Carniboar is/was never used.

Yeah I'm aware of old metas. I was basing this on the most recent shattered fates metas however. But while i was using their usage to validate my points, i wasnt actually trying to make this system based around what gets used more. Hence champion of irum had a lower value despite being arguably used more than puwen.
Anyways, intention seemed to be what was causing the most negative feedback from this thread, and thats likely my fault. I probably should have been much more clear about what my goal was from the start to help aleviate some of the disagreements.

Hopefully the new angle I'm working from after talking to gondorian will be recieved better, I'll be sure to explain the intentions better next time

[seedog]

First of all, thanks for kick starting this calculation. Even we have different opinion on the calculation basis it is nevertheless a valuable way to assess cards. I can see it’s hard to agree on a point system widely accepted as everyone would have their own point system in their mindset, like one may think card A is better than card B, whilst other may think otherwise.

There are some points I would like to add to the point:

1. When certain abilities are combined with certain stats, they may get an additional synergy bonus, e.g. haste with high attack, because they can make the attack first. Example is krygon, a stat of 2/1 is pretty poor without haste, but with haste it is a lot more powerful.

2. Maybe you should not limit the value of allies based on the casting cost. Instead, you may divide the value of the ally by their casting cost, and get a net value per unit casting cost (NVPUCC). Let’s make a cool name for that lol.

[Gondorian]

I guess my point was that corner cases don't really cut it. Karash isn't strictly better than Brutalis if you consider every possible interaction, but for the vast majority of the relevant situations that you will encounter in an actual game of SE, he is. Thus, despite not being better in every possible case, Karash's apparation rate will be much, much more higher than Brutalis'.

Sure, I can agree with that. I just have this thing about people saying 100% when it's not 100%. I think it stems from being a parent, where I keep hearing "she ALWAYS lies", "he's ALWAYS mean", etc, etc. It drives me up the wall and it usually happens when I'm doing the school run in the car, so that's pretty dangerous.

I'd accept 99% just fine, but 100% is explicitly ruling out any other possibility.

[Alzorath]

Hmm... I haven't read the entire thread, but in case it hasn't been mentioned: a simple additive system of points is not going to function properly for assessing the value or power of a card, while KISS (Keep it Simple Stupid) rules still apply here, you can still shift up to formulae that relate bonuses to each other.

for example... an ally with 3 attack and haste, is going to get more value from haste than an ally with 1 attack and haste.

It may be worth considering a formula that gears itself more towards a "balance at 1" effect (ie goal is to make V = 1 )

V = ( ( A * AMods ) + ( L * LMods ) + ( BMods ) ) / C * CMods
V = Value (Aim for 1)
A = Attack ( AMods = Attack Mods )
L = Life/Defense ( LMods = Survivability Mods )
BMods = Bonus Mods ( Value for Miscellaneous abilities - like Broxnorian, Jasmine, etc.)
C = Cost
CMods = Cost Mods (such as Sustain)

An example (this is just with random values):

Rampant Krygon
C = 3
CMods = 2 ( Base Modifier )
A = 2
Amods = 2.2 ( Base 2, -0.1 for Damage of 2, +0.2 for haste)
L = 1
Lmods = 0.7 ( Base 1, -0.3 for Life of 1 )
Bmods = 1.1 ( +0.1 for ability)

( 4.4 + 0.7 + 1.1 ) / 6 = 1.033


These are made up numbers to show the principles... you'd definitely need to tweak the values of keyworded abilities, and then valuing the non-keyword abilities would be a bit of a challenge... (possibly make some abilities multipliers - for example, if you make haste a *1.2 modifier instead of +0.2, it would make a 3 damage haste character have an A*Amod value of 7.2 instead of 6.6, but a 1 damage haste character would have an A*Amod value of 2.04 [ 1 * ( ( 2 - 0.3 ) * 1.2 ) ] )

Obviously, values for high/low life, attack would be a factor...

I'd say base both around a 3/3 (3 attack base, 3 life base) or 3/4 - this would allow for increased values as things go above or below this (ie -0.3 for being 2 under, -0.1 for being 1 under, etc.)

[Caitlyn0]

Sure, I can agree with that. I just have this thing about people saying 100% when it's not 100%. I think it stems from being a parent, where I keep hearing "she ALWAYS lies", "he's ALWAYS mean", etc, etc. It drives me up the wall and it usually happens when I'm doing the school run in the car, so that's pretty dangerous.

I'd accept 99% just fine, but 100% is explicitly ruling out any other possibility.

dang, thats a pretty big issue you have there can i safely say it bothers you 100% of the time? i thought "Why?" was the bigger problem, but i gues they have outgrown that maybe.