Crystal Cost BALANCE

25 posts

Flag Post

Dear Edgebee


I decided to post 1 idea which i find very good for this game. Its not mine, Lamatiel told me about it, and i have to say its 1 of the best ideas i have seen in weeks. I know you are familiar with it, but i want to show you that many players will like that idea, as it changes the game for even better one.


I always felt that some cards are stronger than the others for the same cost, but i have never known what was the reason behind it. Realizing that some cards actually cost 2.6 crystals and others 3.4 explains a lot in this matter. Thats obvious that 3.4 cost card will be stronger than 2.6. However if we round up/down those costs, both cards will be at 3. This makes 1 card a little bit to expensive of its power, the other one to cheap. This causes some cards to be OP compared to others ;-)

For me its clear that this is the main reason why some cards seems to be more powerful than others, and some balance in statistics and abilities of a card is not correct. Balancing it would make it SO MUCH BETTER. It would give players a choice of going for cheaper (weaker) monsters or more expensive ones (stronger). Now because of that rounding the choice is obvious if you want to stay competitive, you have to go for stronger monster as it costs the same as the weaker one. Trying to balance all stats and abilities is HUGE work, and probably not doable to find perfect balance for all cards.

Lamatiels idea is fairly simple. All he suggests is to raise crystal cost of all cards by x10 and crystal income per turn also by x10. This means that we would get 30 crystals per round, sacrificing a monster would give 20 – 30 crystals and item 10 – 30. At the same time cards would cost 20 crystals instead of 2, 30 not 3, and so on. This change will allow a cost/strength ratio to be 10 times more precise than it is now.

This change could have huge impact on a game play:
- more diverse decks
- more choices for players
- more cards in the deck to choose from (players would get more cards to keep in their decks to counter play a specific opponents decks) – i specifically like that the most :D

Im not sure how those x10 numbers can affect programming, but from the player point of view this change is going to be GREAT (if it happens), there is no downside on implementing it, which is very rare :D.

I think large part of players community would LOVE to see this change happen, to balance costs according to cards strength.


=> TO ALL PLAYERS <=>

If you like that idea, please let Edgebee know about it. This way they might think about implementing it. Unless there is someone with a better idea on how to do this, than we can all read about this hear.

 
Flag Post

BULWAHR, i’ve spoken about this on chat before, and I strongly agree. I wouldn’t mind if the actual solution is somewhat different, but with the same underlying logic, as the programmers might find something more viable/simple.

+1!

 
Flag Post

+1

 
Flag Post

Totally agree ! 1-6 cost range is for sure not enough, wider range will make game more balanced for sure, no doubt.

I mean – any wider range – even if all will be only multiply x2 and still be rounded, it will be better for game to have 6 crystals each turn and cost of monster between 2-12.

 
Flag Post

Yeah, i guess x10 is not a must but its easier to see calculate with 10s ;-)

 
Flag Post

+1 Like

 
Flag Post

+1

 
Flag Post

+1

However there will be still arguments on which abilities or damage / HP cost. Like why flying and disease cost the same when flying is obviously superior. (I don’t know the actual cost, just giving an example)

 
Flag Post

+1

 
Flag Post

+1 i’m not playing too long ago with this game, but a change like this makes sense

 
Flag Post

+1 excellento idea!

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by gnostic85:

+1

However there will be still arguments on which abilities or damage / HP cost. Like why flying and disease cost the same when flying is obviously superior. (I don’t know the actual cost, just giving an example)

gnostic got a point, balancing issues might arise from this change. But maybe it will be fixed instead of broken. Example: if flying cost 1.1 and disease cost 0.6 as it is now, they would have the same cost atm, but not if cost get’s changed x10.

 
Flag Post

Not saying this is a bad idea, but I’d like to point out there could be some downsides.

Originally posted by BULWAHR:

Yeah, i guess x10 is not a must but its easier to see calculate with 10s ;-)

10s are easy – 60s less so. Working out combos that add up to 60 is harder than combos that add up to 6 (even if it just that 60 seems more overwhelming) People, especially new people, might find it off putting.
Balancing of abilities would need to be much more accurate – a difference of 0.1 now doesn’t mean much – but might if costs are multiplied by 10.
Card evolution might prove harder – it’s easier to see a card is better if it’s stats increase and it’s cost doesn’t, but much harder it see if it’s worth it when the cost goes up. However, this might just give more interesting desicions.

I’d suggest multipling costs by 3 and giving 10 crystals a turn – 10s are nice and easy. Or just use decimal points – I suspect that will feel less overwhelming than 30 crystals a turn.

 
Flag Post

I do like the idea. But I agree that the math will increase making it harder to strategize, or at least make it take longer. Time to make moves in pvp would need to be increased. if I have 60 crystals I will need to figure out if i can cast a 26 cost creature with a 35 equip quickly. I guess we would all get better at math on the fly. I agree with the balance improvement but this would make the game complicated which could be a turn off for many. What drew me to the game originally was how simple it was to play, yet how deep it was.

Another solution, which is odd to me why Edge has not addressed this themselves, is to fix most of the cards to make them equal. There should be no example of any card that is 2.6 and one that is 3.4. (i realize that this is used as an example to make the point clear) The solution would be to add 10 more hp to the 2.6 card to make it 0.5 higher (or whatever it is). I know that there are cheap abilities like disease too. Not that I want all cards to have the same ability though. But this would decrease the gap between good cards and ok cards. Edge seems to follow some formula that says each card has to have 50 or 70hp and they do not tweak the individual cards. plus when abilities change and decrease, perhaps these cards need a closer look to see if the cost drops or if it needs something added or taken away.

The other obvious reason cards might see more powerful than others is because we, the users, deem some abilities more powerful than others. If we see the math behind the card cost calculation and implement this change, its possible that we will still feel the same and play as we were doing all along.

 
Flag Post

I suggested a long time ago on the Edgebee forums that doubling all crystal costs would give them access to half values to help balance cards. 10x would fine tune it even more although, as others have stated, complicate things.

Another, more recent, balance issue is with the 35% HP increase. Some cards gain from this and some lose out on it. Look at the Blogdyte/Acolyte issue. Blogdyte’s level 5 HP is correct but Acolyte just misses out on having 60HP at level 5

To fully balance things now, it is not just crystal values that need to be looked at but ALL values. Again, doubling these values (HP, Melee, Range, Chance, etc, etc) would give access to half values for everything.

 
Flag Post

Hmm doubling might be a good first step. the most a card will be off then would be around 0.5 instead of 0.9 cost. So 0.6 and 0.7 would round to 0.5 and 0.8 and 0.9 would round to 1. At least the math would be easier.

 
Flag Post

I agree, double cost is a “safer” 1st step. And doesn’t make it so much complicated as 10x would, as bmuell pointed out. All costs will be current cost +/-1.

Originally posted by bmuell01:

the most a card will be off then would be around 0.5 instead of 0.9 cost. So 0.6 and 0.7 would round to 0.5 and 0.8 and 0.9 would round to 1.

That’s accurate enough for me :)

 
Flag Post

+1 for the idea

Could they just keep everything the same, but just not round to the nearest crystal? Or maybe round to the nearest tenth? For example, if Red Dragon cost 4.3 to play and you have 6 crystals, after playing it you only have 1.7 crystals left. The only difference is that people will have to get use to decimals.

 
Flag Post

We talked about this ingame before, as I said then. I support :P

+1

 
Flag Post

I’d be more in favour of manually balancing each card so that each one is close the the border(or at least = to the cost). Cards that are close already stay the same, and those weaker cards get buffed.

Get’s rid of complicating things with decimal points or whatever.

 
Flag Post

Decimals are not a option indeed, I agree… but make all x2 to make bigger range is great idea, everything is still completely easy to count and there is much more possibilities to balance the game.

 
Flag Post

Yeah i would prefer, as BaS and bmuell said, for each card to be adjusted…….. BUT…. do you think its better and easier solution for edgebee? Correcting each card is a lot of work and i even suggested that some time ago. Probably it will never happen (i might be surprised here :D).


x10 idea seems very simple, easy to implement ……. the only downside (quite important) is the math calculation.
27 + 16 might not be quickly seen and 43 cost, which will slow the game and sometime make people miscalculate the cost.


Im glad you guys are discussing this idea in a creative way. Hopefully something good will come out of it. We all see that few arguments HAVE TO be taken into consideration before implementing this idea (IF it even happens).

 
Flag Post

Yeah there should be a balance between multiplying enough so rounding isn’t so dramatic vs. multiplying little enough so the math doesn’t slow the game down and frustrate people. I agree with multiplying by 2 at first. That should space things out more and not slow the game down that much.

 
Flag Post

I had an idea, not sure how good it is, but what if they implemented decimal numbers, but not in the way it has been already suggested here.

My idea is, if a card costs 3.6, instead of rounding it to 4, round it to 3.5. If a card costs 3.4, instead of rounding it to 3, round it to 3.5. This way we wouldn’t have cards of same strength (3.4 vs 3.6) with different costs (3 vs 4), we would have both cards costing the same.

So my suggestion is: allow us to use .5 cost cards. No need to multiply anything. The game doesn’t get more complicated as it would if we multiply everything x10, as a matter of fact I think it wouldn’t get more complicated at all. I mean, how much is 3.5 + 2.5? We get it straight away, 5 is usually an easy number to work with. As BULWAHR said, 27 + 16 isn’t quickly seen as 43, but I’m pretty sure 1.5 + 2 is quickly seen as 3.5.

 
Flag Post

Cris, that’s exactly the same as multiplying by 2…which i think would be easier.