ixidor89
New Member
How to Determine the Value of a Card
By ixidor89
One thing I have never understood about reviewing cards is how the reviewers come up with their numbers. If you visit the pojo.com card of the day section for pokemon, then you’ll know what I’m talking about.
The pojo.com card of the day reviewers talk about what the card in question does, give their opinions of the card, and then score the card on a one to five scale. Besides the ratings, the reviews tend to be very insightful and thought provoking. However, the numbers they give seem to be almost random. It seems like every time I read a card of the day, I see a strange decimal out of five without any basis for the number. I suspect that a conversation with such reviewers would go something like this:
Me: How is it exactly that you figure out your card of the day ratings?
John Q. Reviewer. Well, I just think that those are the right numbers.
Me: You really think that Jirachi DX deserved a rating of the square root of twenty-three?
John Q. Reviewer. Uhhh… Sure.
So, does the rating scale have any importance if people just put baseless numbers as ratings? Can I rate cards with a score of pi out of five and say that score has any depth? Only a drunken llama would believe that I could.
The sad truth is that people that rate cards constantly dish out numbers that have little importance. But why is this so? Do they think that it will make their card ratings look cooler? Is it because they are getting bribed into giving these insane ratings? Did the evil lord Xenu tell them to rate cards this way? Perhaps these numbers are strange because people don’t really have a strong method for rating a card.
My goal in writing this article, other than to become a writer for the pokegym, is to provide a rational method for scaling the play value of the card. The method that I have come up with reviews a card from three categories:
Impact – What the card does.
Practicality – How easy it is to use the card.
Metagame – How useful the card is in a particular play environment.
Let’s go into more detail about each category.
In an alternate dimension, the new card craze is a card game called "cawhds". Currently, there are two cards in print; the card “I win”, and the card “I win forever”. As you might have guessed, the card “I win” makes you win the game, while the card “I win forever” makes you win the game and every game that you play afterwards ( In the event of two players winning at the same time in a game of cawhds, a coin flip determines the winner). So, if you are on the Stargate SG-1 team that goes through the stargate and arrives in this dimension, which of these cards would you choose when playing a game of cawhds? I guarantee you that every single time you will choose “I win forever” because its effect is far more beneficial than just playing “I win”. This is the general principle of card impact; the card that does more stuff gets a higher impact rating.
Later on in this alternate dimension, the local card shop holds a prerelease for the new set in the "cawhds" trading card game. Two cards are in the set; “I win” and “I win because I am an albino”. Predictably, “I win” wins you the game, while “I win because I am an albino” wins you the game on the condition that, well, you are albino. Unless you are albino, the card “I win” is a far more viable choice for use in the tournament. In this case, “I win” would be considered a far more practical means of winning a card game.
Well, our friends in the parallel dimension that play "cawhds" aren’t all that happy with the rampant “I win forever” abuse going on lately. They say that the luck factor is too large in the current format and that deck-building has lost its importance. Don’t you just wonder how this could happen in three card pool format? As a result, CawhdsUSE makes a bold step and releases a fourth card – “Surprise sucka – you lose!” This card ignores the effect of any card with “I win” in its name and makes the people who play the card win the game (Of course, two people playing “Surprise sucka – you lose!” at the same time must also flip a coin to determine the winner). Naturally, all of the serious "cawhds" players start using this card because it wins against everything else and has a fifty-fifty shot of winning against itself, while all of the other cards lose to this new card, with only a fifty-fifty shot against everything else. The metagame dictates, in this case, that “Surprise sucka – you lose!” is the strongest card in the format to run.
To give a numerical rating to cards using this system, rate the card in question on a scale of one to three for each category, with three being strong, two being average and one being a pile of cow dung. Do NOT use decimals. The worst thing that you can do to your numbers is distort them by coming up with fractions that you probably aren’t sure about. Just decide whether a card is good, bad, or average. Also realize that when rating cards using this method, other cards with similar effects to the reviewed card need to be considered. In a world of pokemon with ten hit points, Magikarp from the base set is God. Finally, I should say that the metagame category is considerably more complicated than the other two categories. Because the metagame varies from place to place, this means that he metagame rating of cards can also be variable. I would recommend that this part of the rating system be applied on a more universal scale that a parochial one.
So, let’s review two cards with similar effects; Umbreon EX and Mightyena EX:
1.)a. Impact – Umbreon EX – This card can bounce up any pokemon from the bench that you want come up when you play it, acting as a gust of wind. It has two attacks, one of which can lock a pokemon in the active position and stop it from using powers, while the other can inflict an ample amount of damage. Overall, a pretty strong impact to the game. Umbreon EX gets a 3/3 for impact
b. Impact – Mightyena EX – This card can bounce up anything that your opponent chooses from their bench. This means that what you get is quite variable, sometimes possibly having a pivotal effect on the game, and other times doing absolutely nothing significant. Also has two attacks, which also do relatively strong amounts of damage. Mightyena EX gets a 2/3 for impact.
2.) a. Practicality – Umbreon EX – Umbreon EX has to be played down onto the field to use its effect. Umbreon EX also only gets its effect once, so Umbreon EX is basically a one shot deal. Its attacks are fairly priced at one for twenty and the lockdown factor and three for sixty. Umbreon EX gets a 2/3 for practicality.
b. Practicality – Mightyena EX – The reusability of Mightyena EX’s effect is a boon to the card itself. Its attacks, while doing a fair amount of damage, can only be used for the purpose of doing damage to the active pokemon. As a result, Mightyena EX gets a 2/3 for practicality.
3.) a. Metagame – Umbreon EX – Strengths – Strong against aggressive decks, Mew EX and Bannette EX. Weaknesses – Weak to Battle Frontier, fighting decks, Cursed Stone and Switch. Umbeon EX gets a 2/3 rating for its metagame rating.
b. Metagame – Mightyena EX – Strengths – Strong against decks that put few pokemon on the bench, decks using pokemon with high retreat costs, Mew EX, Bannette EX and decks with many stage two pokemon. Weaknesses – Weak to Battle Frontier, Shifty EX, decks with many low retreat cost pokemon, decks with large benches, fighting decks, decks with no stage two pokemon. Mightyena EX gets a 2/3 for its metagame rating.
If you are interested in finding an overall rating, just average the three values for each card together. In this case, Umbreon EX would get a 2.33/3 rating and Mightyena EX would get a 2/3 rating. In this case, it seems as if Umbreon EX would be an overall better card, but do not take these ratings for fact! Certain problems can change the actual rating, such as personal bias, random fits of insanity, or even very poor math skills. However, these changes to allow rating cards to have an actual structure, rather than rolling a five sided dice. I wonder if five sided dice are real…
Call me an idealist, but I personally believe that numbers should actually mean something, not just the first number that pops into a person’s head. With this system, perhaps we can move one step closer to that ideal. Chuck Norris would definitely approve.
Until Grumpigs fly and poke-heck freezes over,
ixidor89
By ixidor89
One thing I have never understood about reviewing cards is how the reviewers come up with their numbers. If you visit the pojo.com card of the day section for pokemon, then you’ll know what I’m talking about.
The pojo.com card of the day reviewers talk about what the card in question does, give their opinions of the card, and then score the card on a one to five scale. Besides the ratings, the reviews tend to be very insightful and thought provoking. However, the numbers they give seem to be almost random. It seems like every time I read a card of the day, I see a strange decimal out of five without any basis for the number. I suspect that a conversation with such reviewers would go something like this:
Me: How is it exactly that you figure out your card of the day ratings?
John Q. Reviewer. Well, I just think that those are the right numbers.
Me: You really think that Jirachi DX deserved a rating of the square root of twenty-three?
John Q. Reviewer. Uhhh… Sure.
So, does the rating scale have any importance if people just put baseless numbers as ratings? Can I rate cards with a score of pi out of five and say that score has any depth? Only a drunken llama would believe that I could.
The sad truth is that people that rate cards constantly dish out numbers that have little importance. But why is this so? Do they think that it will make their card ratings look cooler? Is it because they are getting bribed into giving these insane ratings? Did the evil lord Xenu tell them to rate cards this way? Perhaps these numbers are strange because people don’t really have a strong method for rating a card.
My goal in writing this article, other than to become a writer for the pokegym, is to provide a rational method for scaling the play value of the card. The method that I have come up with reviews a card from three categories:
Impact – What the card does.
Practicality – How easy it is to use the card.
Metagame – How useful the card is in a particular play environment.
Let’s go into more detail about each category.
In an alternate dimension, the new card craze is a card game called "cawhds". Currently, there are two cards in print; the card “I win”, and the card “I win forever”. As you might have guessed, the card “I win” makes you win the game, while the card “I win forever” makes you win the game and every game that you play afterwards ( In the event of two players winning at the same time in a game of cawhds, a coin flip determines the winner). So, if you are on the Stargate SG-1 team that goes through the stargate and arrives in this dimension, which of these cards would you choose when playing a game of cawhds? I guarantee you that every single time you will choose “I win forever” because its effect is far more beneficial than just playing “I win”. This is the general principle of card impact; the card that does more stuff gets a higher impact rating.
Later on in this alternate dimension, the local card shop holds a prerelease for the new set in the "cawhds" trading card game. Two cards are in the set; “I win” and “I win because I am an albino”. Predictably, “I win” wins you the game, while “I win because I am an albino” wins you the game on the condition that, well, you are albino. Unless you are albino, the card “I win” is a far more viable choice for use in the tournament. In this case, “I win” would be considered a far more practical means of winning a card game.
Well, our friends in the parallel dimension that play "cawhds" aren’t all that happy with the rampant “I win forever” abuse going on lately. They say that the luck factor is too large in the current format and that deck-building has lost its importance. Don’t you just wonder how this could happen in three card pool format? As a result, CawhdsUSE makes a bold step and releases a fourth card – “Surprise sucka – you lose!” This card ignores the effect of any card with “I win” in its name and makes the people who play the card win the game (Of course, two people playing “Surprise sucka – you lose!” at the same time must also flip a coin to determine the winner). Naturally, all of the serious "cawhds" players start using this card because it wins against everything else and has a fifty-fifty shot of winning against itself, while all of the other cards lose to this new card, with only a fifty-fifty shot against everything else. The metagame dictates, in this case, that “Surprise sucka – you lose!” is the strongest card in the format to run.
To give a numerical rating to cards using this system, rate the card in question on a scale of one to three for each category, with three being strong, two being average and one being a pile of cow dung. Do NOT use decimals. The worst thing that you can do to your numbers is distort them by coming up with fractions that you probably aren’t sure about. Just decide whether a card is good, bad, or average. Also realize that when rating cards using this method, other cards with similar effects to the reviewed card need to be considered. In a world of pokemon with ten hit points, Magikarp from the base set is God. Finally, I should say that the metagame category is considerably more complicated than the other two categories. Because the metagame varies from place to place, this means that he metagame rating of cards can also be variable. I would recommend that this part of the rating system be applied on a more universal scale that a parochial one.
So, let’s review two cards with similar effects; Umbreon EX and Mightyena EX:
1.)a. Impact – Umbreon EX – This card can bounce up any pokemon from the bench that you want come up when you play it, acting as a gust of wind. It has two attacks, one of which can lock a pokemon in the active position and stop it from using powers, while the other can inflict an ample amount of damage. Overall, a pretty strong impact to the game. Umbreon EX gets a 3/3 for impact
b. Impact – Mightyena EX – This card can bounce up anything that your opponent chooses from their bench. This means that what you get is quite variable, sometimes possibly having a pivotal effect on the game, and other times doing absolutely nothing significant. Also has two attacks, which also do relatively strong amounts of damage. Mightyena EX gets a 2/3 for impact.
2.) a. Practicality – Umbreon EX – Umbreon EX has to be played down onto the field to use its effect. Umbreon EX also only gets its effect once, so Umbreon EX is basically a one shot deal. Its attacks are fairly priced at one for twenty and the lockdown factor and three for sixty. Umbreon EX gets a 2/3 for practicality.
b. Practicality – Mightyena EX – The reusability of Mightyena EX’s effect is a boon to the card itself. Its attacks, while doing a fair amount of damage, can only be used for the purpose of doing damage to the active pokemon. As a result, Mightyena EX gets a 2/3 for practicality.
3.) a. Metagame – Umbreon EX – Strengths – Strong against aggressive decks, Mew EX and Bannette EX. Weaknesses – Weak to Battle Frontier, fighting decks, Cursed Stone and Switch. Umbeon EX gets a 2/3 rating for its metagame rating.
b. Metagame – Mightyena EX – Strengths – Strong against decks that put few pokemon on the bench, decks using pokemon with high retreat costs, Mew EX, Bannette EX and decks with many stage two pokemon. Weaknesses – Weak to Battle Frontier, Shifty EX, decks with many low retreat cost pokemon, decks with large benches, fighting decks, decks with no stage two pokemon. Mightyena EX gets a 2/3 for its metagame rating.
If you are interested in finding an overall rating, just average the three values for each card together. In this case, Umbreon EX would get a 2.33/3 rating and Mightyena EX would get a 2/3 rating. In this case, it seems as if Umbreon EX would be an overall better card, but do not take these ratings for fact! Certain problems can change the actual rating, such as personal bias, random fits of insanity, or even very poor math skills. However, these changes to allow rating cards to have an actual structure, rather than rolling a five sided dice. I wonder if five sided dice are real…
Call me an idealist, but I personally believe that numbers should actually mean something, not just the first number that pops into a person’s head. With this system, perhaps we can move one step closer to that ideal. Chuck Norris would definitely approve.
Until Grumpigs fly and poke-heck freezes over,
ixidor89
Last edited:
