Thread:MagmaHound/@comment-32638135-20160716031156

I really love your card ratings, and it's one of the best card rating concepts I've seen. (Well, probably actually the only innovation I've really seen in this area.) Taking the different aspects of a card into consideration seriously improves its value for deck builders, since decks are about SYNERGY, not just powerful cards. However, two suggestions and a half about it.

1. The "attacking solo" part would possibly be better replaced or supplemented by a "tanking" part since cards like the Golem or etc. do little damage on their own but can act as a powerful meat shield for other units.

2. One of the things I feel should be in every card rating but see unoften is a consideration of the value of a card at different Arenas, as the meta changes. For example, the Skeleton Army is unparalleled at the early Arenas for value in wiping out enemy troops and swarming them. However, in the late arenas, it is extremely easy to counter versus say, Barbarians and thus rarely seen. A good card rating should take into consideration the value of a card throughout the game, not just at one stage.

3?. It seems 5 stars might not be enough fidelity. Maybe it is, but a few ratings seem a bit high or low when they actually should be somewhere in the middle, say like the Witch which I use currently and consider a formidable card at these middle arenas, but which receives a bit of I low rating in my opinion. A few more levels could make the ratings more precise.

Those are just a few humble suggestions, but they could possibly improve this humble listing by a great amount.

Banana, signing out.

P.S. If you want a tl;dr, let me know. 