We all love this game, we all discuss it and we all talk about it.
So why is there no good system to "rate" a card?
Too complex? Yup. Too many different "jobs"? Yup.
There is the obvious "adding", which measures the value by adding the stats up: POW+DAM+AB+BON.
This makes Flavio Cr almost as good as e.g. Pegh.
An advanced model created by udlean can be found here:
This model is weighted, split up between SoA and SoB and customizable.
However it is still easy and therefore good to use. (Like!)
My Attempt with this ELO Rating System is not that easy.
It doesn't sum up Power and Damage.
It is based on the idea that the cards you want to rate have to fight against an "Average Card" for the different (star-)levels. This gives you a "Winning-Percantage" which can be used to weight your damage.
But it is not only the damage you inflict by winning a round, but also the damage you prevent when your opponent loses.
And by losing around, you can also prevent damage via reducers, SoA, SoB or Defeat:.
The (weighted) Addition of the two Ratings, Offensive and Defensive, gives you the Efficiency-Rating for your cards.
You can get the Efficiency-Rating-Model here:
It has some Distributions and variables to customize for your own likings.
And please give me comments here to help me improve this model further.
This system is far from being the ultimate solution, of course.
For example Role-Players/Specialists like Dam.Reds. (Veenyl Cr) or FURY-based cards (Kenny) are essential in a deck (okay, maybe not Kenny ), but are too narrowed in their special job, so they get an lower rating.
This Rating measures the Overall Performance of a card. The ability to win a round comes into account, just like the damage done or the gain when the card loses a the fight.
Because of this all-around performers like LeBron Jam... Ahkab, Herman or Askai are rated best.
It is also difficult to find the proper value for a pill compared to a point life, the rating of Poison with its minimum.
Pillz and Poison(Heal also) are taken into account, with their respective minimum and can be changed to fit the users estimation.
I personally don't think you can use maths, computers e.c.t to work out how good cards are. Its all down to play style, other cards in the deck, the clan they are from, the experiance of the player using them, (sometimes the price e.c.t). Thats why whenever i post changes to decks, unless its obviously a bad card, i will always say personally.
Up to a certain point you can use math or game theory to make some statements about cards.
You can compare Power or Damage or their performance against SoA or SoB.
The "Play Style" can (simplified) be described as "in which round do i play this card?" and "how many pillz do i use on this card?".
When you now add prediction about the decks or clans you face (long-term), then you can make some assumptions about the usefullniss of this card. In General.
When you look at each card individually, then, of course, you have to consider more practical aspects.
But compare UR with Poker, for example.
There you have a lot of Literature about strategy/playing style or theoretical aspects.
Or (espacially American) sports, like basketball, where everything is shoved into numbers.
Why not in UR?
The statistical/theoretical approach doesn't take away any ways of playing or other things.
It adds a facette to UR.
I build this model to prevent those things (Flavio) from happening. (I hope it worked.)
Creating exact numbers isn't the abition, because of strategy, clan, etc.
But to can give a rough overview over the strenght of a card.
Please take a look at this system.