Obviously we can point out some fairly broken commons (Piloted Shredder) as well as completely terrible epics / legends. Is there supposed to be a power difference between rarity or what is it that dictates what rarity a card receives? Sometimes I feel like they just roll a magic Christmas land d4 to see what rarity they want to attach to cards rather than having legitimate reasons for choosing the rarity they do for cards.
Can anyone add any insight in how they determine rarity. The difference between common and epic is obviously going to be the more interesting discussion here since legendary tends to be characters from the lore rather than the random creatures and spells that happen to fall into the game.
Power isn't necessarily a consideration when choosing the rarity of cards, from what I understand. Epics aren't suppose to be objectively better than rares and such. The rarity does dictate how often the card will show up in arena, so I assume they take that into consideration a little, but with some of their decisions lately I'm not sure of that.
I believe it has to do with the level of interaction. Commons are almost always balls of stats, rares are more complex, epics are the most complex. Legendaries are unique and impact the game in a powerful way, too powerful to be able to run more than one copy.
Rarity is mostly dictated for the sake of arena, I guess. After all, you can't guarantee synergies, so it makes sense to have cards that are the most reliant on a specific setup to be more rarely drafted. Very few decks can make use of Doomsayer or Murloc Warleader in arena unless they draft cards specifically for them, which is extremely rare. Same goes for constucted to some extent. You want players to gain access to card that stand best on their own early and the ones that require specific combos to be more rare. Otherwise, new players get stuck with a bunch of card that they can't really make use of.
Legendaries are a bit different, because they can have a really wide range of usefulness, but are supposed to be more flavorful than anything.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CDC #34, #3.07, #3.08 and Mini Competition #1 Finalist --- Click on the images below to check out my different custom card threads!
I believe it has to do with the level of interaction. Commons are almost always balls of stats, rares are more complex, epics are the most complex. Legendaries are unique and impact the game in a powerful way, too powerful to be able to run more than one copy.
This. It's about the uniqueness of the card and its ability.
Best example is steamwheedle sniper and fallen hero. The result of each of their abilities is making your hero power deal 2 damage anywhere you want, but the sniper is an epic and the hero is a rare, why? Because of HOW they reached that result. Fallen hero just adds an extra attack to your HP. Adding an extra attack is a generic and normal ability.
On the other hand, Steamwheedle sniper makes your HP, which only targets the enemy hero, targets minions, so it changes the whole identity of your HP, which is a unique card effect. That's why the sniper is an epic and the hero is a rare even though the results are the same.
I believe it has to do with the level of interaction. Commons are almost always balls of stats, rares are more complex, epics are the most complex. Legendaries are unique and impact the game in a powerful way, too powerful to be able to run more than one copy.
It's determined mostly by how "weird" it is as far as I can see. Most of the commons are pretty plain core cards, whereas Epics and Legendaries tend to be the cards that have card text that isn't really found on other cards, like Quartermaster, Fel Reaver, Force of Nature, etc.
Epics often look bad at first glance because their interactions are situational by definition.
But when the situation in question arises, that epic often turns into something obscenely OP.
Big Game Hunter creates a hugely favorable tempo swing, but only if his narrowly defined Battlecry hits.
Mysterious Challenger is just a pile of stats unless you build your entire deck around him.
Astral Communion will quickly lose you the game unless your deck is built around it.
Naga Sea Witch is terrible unless you have other high-cost cards in your hand, in which case she's incredible.
Twisting Nether and Brawl are great if you don't have any minions you want to keep -- less great if you do.
You would never want a Sideshow Spelleater if your deck relied on your hero power, but she's better if your HP is weak.
So obviously, not all epic cards are good, and many are very bad if used without regard to their drawbacks. Some become highly regarded and others do not because some of the required conditions are much easier to meet than others.
And of course there are a few exceptions, such as Ancient of Lore, that are always good all on their own, in any context. Most of these always-good epics are worth examining for balance issues, as they are often very close to crossing the line.
Obviously we can point out some fairly broken commons (Piloted Shredder) as well as completely terrible epics / legends. Is there supposed to be a power difference between rarity or what is it that dictates what rarity a card receives? Sometimes I feel like they just roll a magic Christmas land d4 to see what rarity they want to attach to cards rather than having legitimate reasons for choosing the rarity they do for cards.
Can anyone add any insight in how they determine rarity. The difference between common and epic is obviously going to be the more interesting discussion here since legendary tends to be characters from the lore rather than the random creatures and spells that happen to fall into the game.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
Power isn't necessarily a consideration when choosing the rarity of cards, from what I understand. Epics aren't suppose to be objectively better than rares and such. The rarity does dictate how often the card will show up in arena, so I assume they take that into consideration a little, but with some of their decisions lately I'm not sure of that.
I believe it has to do with the level of interaction. Commons are almost always balls of stats, rares are more complex, epics are the most complex. Legendaries are unique and impact the game in a powerful way, too powerful to be able to run more than one copy.
Rarity is mostly dictated for the sake of arena, I guess. After all, you can't guarantee synergies, so it makes sense to have cards that are the most reliant on a specific setup to be more rarely drafted. Very few decks can make use of Doomsayer or Murloc Warleader in arena unless they draft cards specifically for them, which is extremely rare. Same goes for constucted to some extent. You want players to gain access to card that stand best on their own early and the ones that require specific combos to be more rare. Otherwise, new players get stuck with a bunch of card that they can't really make use of.
Legendaries are a bit different, because they can have a really wide range of usefulness, but are supposed to be more flavorful than anything.
CDC #34, #3.07, #3.08 and Mini Competition #1 Finalist ---
Click on the images below to check out my different custom card threads!
RNG.
"Put your face in the light!" - Tirion Fordring
Valar Morghulis
RIP yogg-saron good things don't last forever :(
Power isn't dictated by rarity...thank god. That would push the game extremely towards ptw.
In essence, rarity dictates how interesting/unique a card is usually.
It's determined mostly by how "weird" it is as far as I can see. Most of the commons are pretty plain core cards, whereas Epics and Legendaries tend to be the cards that have card text that isn't really found on other cards, like Quartermaster, Fel Reaver, Force of Nature, etc.
Make the Card: The biggest thread on the site!
My mandibles which are capable of pressing down and tearing, my talons which are known to intercept and hold.
Epics often look bad at first glance because their interactions are situational by definition.
But when the situation in question arises, that epic often turns into something obscenely OP.
So obviously, not all epic cards are good, and many are very bad if used without regard to their drawbacks. Some become highly regarded and others do not because some of the required conditions are much easier to meet than others.
And of course there are a few exceptions, such as Ancient of Lore, that are always good all on their own, in any context. Most of these always-good epics are worth examining for balance issues, as they are often very close to crossing the line.
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland