MArcomage

I totally agree with Progressor. I don't like it much the way it is now. One should be able to banish Durables at the same and one level above the Banish level.

[moved from different thread]

Or a compromise if ppl don't fully agree: 50% to banish one level above? Could be good I think

My first idea to change Banish was this: https://netvor.sk/trac/arcomage/changeset/426

Successful discard would depend on played and targeted card rarity. The table below explains what is the probability of discard (in rows are played card rarities, in colums targeted card rarities).

__|_C_|_U_|_R_
-------------------
C | 100 | 50 | 25
-------------------
U | 100 | 100 | 50
-------------------
R | 100 | 100 | 100

(sorry for the crappy table, but this is the best I can do with current formatting)

So for example chance that Uncommon Banish card discards a Rare card is 50%.

Later I came up with new idea of Banish the one we have now. I like the new one more. Maybe you noticed that I made some general changes about discarding cards. Rare cards are now more difficult to discard, but they are also more difficult to get. So this is a strategic decision, the scope is wider then the Banish keyword effect.

I would suggest adding a new Banish card or two to the game. Presently, the only one that uses bricks is Common, and all but one of the Uncommon and Rare choices are very recruits-heavy. There's certainly room in some decks for an Uncommon or even Rare Banish choice that doesn't cost a lot and, in exchange, doesn't do much aside from banishing.

Bronze golem used to be my Banish card of choice, but it's presently rather useless due to the change and its (lack of) rarity.

Or maybe extract resources, equal to the cost of discarded card?
And +1 lvl of banish.

I highly disagree with randomness of banish effect.

I usually don't even use Banish cards... but I do agree that they seem kinda useless right now.

+1 level of Banish would be a quick fix, but might not be what you're looking for.

A somewhat more complicated system might be in order, where a lower-rarity Banish has a chance to remove a higher-rarity Durable, but (if there's multiple Durable cards) is most likely to go for the least rare one. Perhaps assign a weight to the different cards, so that (in the event of multiple possible choices) the specific card targeted is random, but you're more likely to target a card within your rarity range. Once the card has been selected, you can use your table outright; with the listed percentages being the odds of removal.

Sample card weight table:

_| C | U | R
-------------
C | 9 | 3 | 1
-------------
U | 3 | 9 | 1
-------------
R | 1 | 3 | 9

Endoviors suggestion made the most sense IMO

Always good to have him around. :-)

Yes, a very refined solution. I like it. More programming work for Mojko though, but worth it, I think.

Heh, always nice to have fans. :-)

My two cents: Banish is currently worthless, adding more randomness to the game is bad.

Maybe adding more common durables will make banish more useful. also I suggest to add the banish keyword to more (cheap) rares. maybe the best thing is to have #common durables = #common banish, #uncommon durables = #uncommon banish, #rare durables = #rare banish.

I think current system is fine and later, when new durable cards will be added, everything will be just right ;-)

I disagree. The current system really isn't fine right now. There two are rare card with banish only one of which sees play as far as I can tell (Alastor, Flame of Heaven). On the other hand there are 13 rare durable cards, about 6 or 7 of which see a fair to good amount of play, about 3 of which can really dominate the game (Bank, Magic Academy, and to a lesser extent, Manufactory). Yes it does suck when a common card can take out a rare one, but if banish is implemented right this wont happen very often at all. And what sucks even more is losing to a card that you only have a 0.4% chance of ever getting after any one card. What's worse is that even if you do get that card, chances aren't bad that it's only a 50% chance or even 33% to get the particular card that you want. So to fix the power level of the durable cards, there need to be a lot more playable rares with banish, or there needs to be a weight system to give commons and uncommons some chance of taking out durable cards. Getting Bank when you have about 38 or more bricks and 16 or more recruits normally equates to a win unless your opponent can deal with it in one or two turns because it outpaces your opponents resources so much while also fending off their attacks to some degree. Magic Academy and Manufactory are similar in that some decks are able to get to the point where they can reliably play them every other turn and completely outpace their opponent's attacks or tower building.

This is why I think the situation isn't fine. I would prefer to see a game where there isn't this level of inevitability.

I personally like the:
Common: 100/50/25
Uncommon:100/100/50
Rare:100/100/100

The argument against Banish because a common card can discard a rare card is dumb. Tribute can make 3 rare cards discard for zero cost. If you want to protect your rare durable cards, put common and uncommon durable cards in your deck to absorb the Banish.

I think that Banish can be transformed into another token-keyword. But tokens collect only from played card. 20 tokens for common, 50 tokens for uncommon, 100 tokens for rare banish card. Banishes highest possible card.

My vote would be to turn Durable cards slightly more powerful and return Banish cards back to their original state.

"Tribute can make 3 rare cards discard for zero cost"

Both Tribute and Black market are unable to target rares with their effect (see modified cards section from last update).

...I don't get what the deal with making rare impossible to discard is.

The ONLY thing that's doing is making the game more random. When Rares can't be discarded by common cards, it means, if one person draws a rare it's more difficult to stop.

It's much more likely that only one player with draw a rare, unbalancing the match. Which ever player draws it has a MUCH better chance of winning.

Considering everyone has been complaining about you making the game too random, this was a very poor decision. It just sways the game even more towards rares and which player gets lucky and draws them.

The common cards cannot usually discard rares, but uncommons can. So if you want to defend yourself against opponent's rares, you can choose from a variety of uncommon cards, that can discard rares.

I don't think this is making game more random. It's up to you decide which cards will you put in the deck.