MArcomage

Every time I build a new deck I have a certain strategy in mind.
This strategy is mainly made of two things

1) What kind of deck is it? ( tower destruction f.e.)
2) how do the cards that I need work together ( card types and combos )

lots of cards are powerd by other cards on the field and just for example: I have a lot of common and uncommon holy cards in my deck just because the uncommon fairy is amplified by holy cards.

When I build a deck I can see the uncommon and common cards working together... but not the rares... most of the time I just choose a few rares which are allways usefull like Master Of The Past or Prince Of Thieves and the rest of my rare deck slots is filled with the most damaging cards... but there is almost no connection to the common and uncommon cards in my deck. It doesen't matter which type the new rare card is or which recource it requires... and that's what I don't like. I somehow want to have more control over my deck and the rare cards in it without making them to powerfull.
Maybe more cards like Golden Zepter or Magic Lamp ( I won't use these two because they don't fit my strategy ).
Maybe cards like Beastiary for other card types.

-As Progressor indicated maybe more Rares for the main card types.

Please think about this because I think it's important to give the choice of your rares more weight.

Some point here...

Keyword: Brigand
# (Un)Common: Plenty
# Rare: 1

Keyword: Holy
# (Un)Common: Plenty
# Rare: 2

Keyword: Soldier
# (Un)Common: Plenty
# Rare: 2

Etc.

I disagree on the solution. I do agree with the problem though.

There are plenty of rares, but few that fit certain strategies, so you are forced to put rares in your deck that don't fit your plans.

To me, the solution is to reduce the number of rares in your deck. Perhaps only have 9 slots for rares.

And what would that do with the chances of getting a rare? Just increase the chance of getting a specific one (1/9 > 1/12)? Or...

Actually, I like JimmyMethod's idea. The card drawing system is easy to adjust, becuase it first determines the rarity of the new card (6% for rare). Then it takes a random card from the selected rarity.

So the implementation changes would be minimal - instead of choosing on random card from 15, it would choose from 9.

A logical consequence is the increased chance of getting a specific rare card.

on the other hand his idea would increase the chance of getting "overpowerd" rares more often... right now cards like Prince Of Thieves or Order Of The White Lotus are just on the enge of being fair because you don't draw them more than once a game.

Maybe there should be a list of cards with a lower chance to be drawn (this should probably be discussed in another thread)

F.e.
Archangel, Lord Of Time, Stronghold...etc 6%
Prince Of Thieves, Turbular Bells, Order Of The White Lotus...etc 3%

Rares are rares. If you think a card is over powered, then it should be nerfed. That isn't really on the subject.

I believe that it does pertain to the subject. It has already been discussed that some Rares are useful for almost any deck, whereas many don't work well with other planning at all. If the option is given to take only those few that would certainly be useful, then you are inflating the chance of getting that particular card, giving it a greater overall effect as it would influence more games more often. If I had the option, and I hope that I never do, to take only OotWL and PoT as my only Rares, and each then had a 3% chance of appearing in a vacant slot in hand, I'd certainly go for it, and the game would be less fun.

My opinion is that if a player is granted the option of taking fewer Rare cards, the chance to draw a Rare should be adjusted to grant the same overall chance that it had before. If the current chance to draw a specific Rare is (6/100) * (1/15) = (1/250), then a player with only 9 Rares in his deck should have a (1/250)/(1/9) = (9/250) = 3.6% chance, adjusted again for the 2.4% loss overall. (100/97.6) * 3.6 = 3.69% chance to draw a Rare if there are only nine Rare cards in a deck. (The percentages for drawing a Common or Uncommon would also have to be modified for the 100/97.6 difference, and any other possible total number of Rares would yield again different numbers.)

This ignores that cards that have the effect of drawing a Rare in your deck as well as one not in your deck would have their odds of relevancy altered as well.

It occurred to me that the initial step of my math can be simplified to (9/15) * 6% = 3.6%. Heh.

Ok, here's my argument:
Everyone can play whatever cards they want. More than 50% of this game, probably closer to 80% is based on how you design your deck. Forcing players to pick up cards they don't want in their deck (i.e. having 15 slots and only, say, 7 rares they want) means good deck builders aren't allowed to build the decks they want.

As for the rares that are useful to 'any deck', like Lotus and Prince, yes, they're /useful/ but neither of those cards will win games. However, a strategy specific card like Crugg or Redesign, can turn the tide of a match WAY more than one of the cards you list. It rewards thoughtful deck construction.

I somehow don't get your idea... for me you're just stating facts :p

I think Dpsychos solution has the right approach but something's still bothering me... I just don't know what ;)

My point is, when given the choice of only 9 cards, smart deck builders will select strat. specific cards, and toss the general cards that don't further their deck's goal.

If anything, reducing the number of rares will reduce the amount people use cards like Lotus.

This is an interesting discussion. Even more interesting: I don't know wich side Im on. XD

I believe Im tending too JM's side...
The cards everyone considers to be overpowered are (almost) never the last card played, deciding the match. They both are quite conditional, the Lotus is just postponing the inevitable most of the time...

Though indeed rares that are conditional might sometimes form an unfavorable pick below general rares...

How about being able to choose between 9-15 rares?

That sounds unnecessarily complicated. It'd screw up the odds, for one thing... that's actually a database lookup to even DETERMINE the proper odds.

+ you wouldn't be forced any more, to follow your strategy. That was part of the point.

I Have quite interesting idea.
To allow to put uncommon/common cards in rare card slots with ability to have same card twice - in uncommon part, and in rare part, to increase chance of certain card appears. It makes sense for many strategies... which mostly depend on uncommons.

That wouldn't even double the chance of drawing a specific common / uncommon. Most cases you'll still pick a generally good rare over a slight increased chance of a specific uncommon, if you have the room.

*push* I don't think that much has changed since the time this topic was created ;)