I expect a bit of chaff for trying to raise an issue like this, so if it just grates you the wrong way either read it and try to enjoy some ideas or read another post,..

My interest here is to find a comprehensible formula by which to rate a card.
The end result of this card valuation would be the ability to mathematically calculate a rating that described its efficiency, and therefore calculate an entire deck on an efficiency scale.

I would try to do this without help. Math, while interesting, is not my strongest suit.
To approach a calculation like this, I would assume you would need a base value for each criteria going into the final equation. (a 4 drop character needs to be 7atk/7def to approach base value for the 4 drop slot)
how do you factor in abilities and equate them? This is where I start to lose conceptual cohesion.

Is there another way to reach values?

preliminary criteria assessment:
Attack
Defense
Recruit Cost / Threshold
Ability / Effect
What else?
Interest or ideas anyone?

I was discussing this with a buddy last night, comparing a 4th turn cyborg with 0 boost, jetpack to make him a 8/6 flight range vs his 11/7 Sabretooth. And we concluded this. Flight +1, range +1, every point beyond 7 +1 oviously, sabretooth the better of the two but a crude way to calculate we leave cyborg only a notch or two below sabretooth, considering the 1 card deck thinnin' as a poin aswell..

The reason this type of thing doesn't work as well as it should is that certain cards are pure crap in one deck and pure gold in another.

Do you have an example of that kind of card ?
Of coarse the end numerical valuation will be a representative and not actual value for the card or content.
just getting to a feasable equasion is what im after. improvements can evolve over time.

Faces of Doom is one of the worst cards to ever put in your pure New Brotherhood deck. It's a must have in Doom decks though.

Ditto for Boris.

New Brotherhood is killer in a New Brotherhood deck but I'd never run it in my FF Beats.

-Mike

What about a system like this.

Every card has a feasible value of 10. Totally hypothetical. (this would obviously equate to a 6,000 point value for a deck based on a 60 card build) 10 represents a value of perfection that cannot be achieved by a card.

A negative modifier is applied to adjust the card based on each criteria value.

A (4) criteria card could have a negative modifier of somewhere between 0 and 2.5, as 2.5 is a quarter of the value of 10.

Lets say each criteria has a base neg modifier of 2 for the sake of computation.

Each type of card is going to need a set number of criteria. Opinions on all the possible criteria for each card type are highly valued.

An example might be Cassandra Cain<>Batgirl for instance.
Criteria focus on:
ATK / DEF / Recruit Cost / Ability
(are these ALL the relevant potentials?)
ATK: her stat is above the base value for the cost so less modifier might be applied. lets say for an ATK value equal to the base value a penalty of 2 points is applied. lets say every point above or below base value is a modifier of .25 for the sake of theory development. This would make her penalty for ATK a total of 1.75 ( this all falls apart if a character exceeds its base value by over 8 points)
ATK = -1.75

DEF: her defense is base so a -2 would be applied.
DEF = -2

Recruit Cost: She has loyalty. Loyalty should be a recruit value modifier. loyalty is harsh. not like "show another affiliated,.." A base value penalty of 2 for the recruit criteria and hypothetically another .5 for loyalty.
Recruit penalty: -2.5

Ability: Her ability is great. how great? well, on planned outings more often than not she survives. it's like that. so how about a base pen of 2 modified by .75 plus
Ability = -1.25

Atk = -1.75
DEF = -2
Recruit = -2.5
Ability = -1.25

Cassandra cain<>Batgirl Value rated (VR) at 2.25

By way of comparison lets try Invisible Woman/Sue Storm

ATK: Base mod redux of -2 corrected by a further penalty (FP) of .25 for -1 base atk value.
ATK = -2.25
DEF: base mod redux of -2 corrected by added value (AV) of .25 for +1 above base value defence.
DEF = -1.75
Recruit: base mod redux of -2 corrected by 0.
Rec = -2
Ability: base mod redux of -2 corrected by geez, whaddya think, 1.5? sure, sounds good.
Ability = -.5

Invisible Woman/Sue Storm Value rated @ 3.5

Could an equation like this,...modified appropriately work feasibly?

I applaud your effort to design such a system. However, the game is too organic for such a system to have any real value.

I agree GDE, there are way too many things that would influence the potential value of a card in terms of game play. Longshot is a 10 in army decks. He fizzles in any other deck. So far I have only seen 2 cards that are so good they deserve at least a copy or 2 in ANY deck you are playing (of course this is my opinion....anyone want to chime in other "5-star ANY deck" cards feel free to): Savage Beatdown and Have a Blast

oh yeah and Mordencanen, umm...you gave me a headache at 6 in the morning. ;)

Cassandra Cain's ability can be terrible. What if, for whatever reason, you build a deck with 4 Alfreds and a 4 Cassandra Cain in an otherwise pure Arkham Deck. Just for the craziness of it. Then her ability is hardly better than packing multiple copies of any other character. BUT if you did something like... a deck that was 100% Gotham Characters, then her ability would be as amazing as your card drawing would allow.

It's a nice idea that you could wrap everything up in a nice, neat package but even with OFFICIAL descisions some people will tell you that Feral Rage is _too_ good at 4. Others will say that Cool Customer or Silver Surfer are way too good at ANY drop. (mostly because they're new and still shiny to all of us). Other people will say, "Eh" and continue to sweetly caress their Thing: Heavy Hitter or Beast Boy or whatever.

I mean, you could certainly give your opinion and use a complicated "formula" but you'd find, probably, not a single person who would agree with it often enough, exactly enough to really call it any kind of formula. It's more like your unique way of occupying more time than necessary when rating cards. :) Which isn't a bad thing if you have a lot of time to waste before Web of Spiderman, hits.

Oh... And does a lower score mean better or a higher score mean better? lol I'm with Speedball... I've got a headache.

-Mike

I guess the potential end result is what keeps me motivated here. probability assessment, the Final Frontier.
All of your points are valid, and also computable. A character can be given a modifier based on # of affiliated characters in the deck.
Well, in all honesty I was hoping for a bit more positive responce. Such is Life.
I will continue with my theory developement on the boards for you to scope at your leisure.
Sorry about the headaches. not intended to harm.

Higher numbers in character value represent increased efficiency value.

Im not sure about the starting with a value for a card representing its unachievable perfection value, but at this point it seems right.

Ok. So at this point i have these modifiers for a character.
Atk / def / Recruit / ability / flight / range / affiliation / %affiliation association ( in individual deck designs)[this one is going to challenge me]

Given a base card value of 10 points, a character now has 8 value modifiers. 1.25 becomes the new total value swing for each mod. for the sake of just getting something on paper lets make .05 our new adjustment unit representing 1 point of atk / def and some quantifiable amount of value for the other modifiers.
[Here's the deal. if you hold up a Cassandra Cain in one hand and an Invisible Woman / Sue Storm in another, you "know" Invisible woman is a little bit better card. that "knowing" should have a formula. I think.]

How this is going to cross over to plot twists, equipment and locations i have no idea yet. one at a time.

Lets make the base neg modifier for achieving the normal values for a characters drop 1 point.
Any character credited with full penalties would be worth a mere 2 points to your deck.
Review of Batgirl:
Atk= -1 corrected + .05(for 1 point above normal base atk value)= .95 penalty (total current value=2.05)
def= -1 corrected by 0(for achieving normal drop value)= -1
Recruit= -1 corrected -.10(for loyalty)(should this be more?)
Ability= -1 corrected +.5 (for a good ability)
Flight= -1
range = -1
Affiliation= -1
affiliation composition %= -1 corrected by some modifier related to composition %.

Done for now. Back later.


:classic: