My Rating System, Updated (Rastakhan) 

You know what? Your rating system only needed two things. Whizbang and not whizbang.

I had this thought the FIRST rating system, but ultimately, I believe that having this many ratings is pointless. The cards will be put into the wrong category anyways. As an example, you've just moved Belligerent Gnome into "Excellent in Most Metas (4)," but it's probably (depending on the scale you're using) "Okay in Some Metas (2)." [me personally, I will likely rate it 1 star, it will see under 1% of play across decks.] You've taken a stab at calling A New Challenger and Daring Fire-Eater as "Pretty Good (4)" but they could easily (and I would argue, more likely to be) "Sadly Lacking (2)". [or 1 star, even] How can we objectively state Flamestrike is "Pretty Good (4)" but Hellfire is "Strong in the Right Deck (3)"? Hellfire is played in 10% of decks in standard, Flamestrike is in 4.2%. That's across all players. The higher ranked data you look at though, the more Hellfire is played and the less Flamestrike is played. In short, it's hard to rate new cards, and I argue a card should just be rated objectively according to how much play it sees. You're not wrong that a card's rating changes over time, but I think that the interesting times to rate a card are when it is of unknown rating. Once a meta is established, everyone can see that Raid Leader is used in 6.4% of decks, and is in fact Pretty Good (4). So at the end of the day, we take guesses at how strong a card is. Does which one of "Pretty Good (4), Deck-Defining (4), Amazing if Used Right (4), or Excellent in All Metas (4)" a rating is used if it's actually applied to a card like Flark's Boom-zooka? Nobody really cares which particular sub-rating of "4 star" it's used on, it's simply a bad card that didn't see play (1 star).

But you only rate for power, if you put your heart into the game (and are rank 20) all cards are viable-ben brode Jr. (The purity of the cards)

This is clearly well thought out, but far too complicated for any viewer to be expected to keep track of it. I would have to watch this video every single time I watch one of your card reviews, and even pause to check here again every so often. I would suggest ditching the card idea you have, and instead just make a table, where you can check boxes, write words, etc. to describe the power level and category of a card in a way that is far easier to understand. I get that having the ratings being cards is unique, but when it becomes this complex, sometimes you just need to simplify your graphics.

See, now I'm *really* curious as to what those “conceptual” ratings are. Love the system though, and would love to see it more widely used!

"it dates the reviews after 3-4 months" What a coincidence, that's usually when Trump re-reviews the cards.

I love this system. Remember, this channel is about card theory, an academic approach to card design. I can tell that you put a lot of care into this revamp, especially with the deck defining rating. I think it's important to know why a card is strong in the first place, and this system tries to get to the heart of it. To those looking for a simple version, I did like Firebat's star system. Both you and him recognize in your systems that bad cards can be made good given the circumstances

Hey, I really have to request that you separate the tech card row from the rest, perhaps orienting it along the top horizontally to match the rarity pattern, but preferably clearly separate. It’s harder to see the flow of colors when the tech cards cap the right side of the primary square. I went into this pretty intimidated because I couldn’t see a clear pattern from my initial glimpse. I do like the system, tho.

I think it's a great improvement, making the ratings more understandable for the viewer (as long as they remember what everything means), and way more rewarding to understand. Good job.

I love the fact that you are trying so hard in order to create an ever evolving, easy to read rating tool for the game. Hope you get all the support you need to keep going and improving. Congrats on the honesty and hard work. Thank you very much for the video!

I'm in awe at the size of this rating system. Absolute unit.

While I appreciate the effort and thought that have gone into this, this system has one glaring flaw: after watching the video I cannot for the love of god explain how this system works. It's just too complex. It won't be used or understood by anybody because it requires so much work to understand.

I really appreciate all the efforts you put in your system. To me, ultimately, it's awesome to see someone putting so much work in something they do as a passion. I don't even have the capacity to fully understand every point you do, but I feel motivated just by seeing how much of love you showed for the thing you created. Thanks for that.

I thoght it was impossible being hyped for a rating system. I was wrong.

My ideal rating system is where there is a category for the card's core power(which includes the synergies it ENABLES, not being benefited by) and the card's current impact on the meta.

Amani war bear is bae He attack He protecc But most importantly He a relevant top deck

This channel is hella underated

Oh hey guys The Penniless Player here and I've heard your criticism about how complicated it was so I simplified the definitions of the ratings. There's now going to be 35 ratings in the 3.0 update video that I make.

I love this rating system, regardless of its viability compared to other reviewers, just because its uniqueness sets it out. I love how some cards can overlap categories, and I love the way you broke up the groupings. It may be much more complicated, but that's what's important about this type of review - it's for people who don't want to listen for 40 minutes about a card, but DO want an instant snap-shot at the depth of a card. I personally really like it. I'm REALLY curious what the other couple ratings would be though, specifically regarding skulking geist. Don't let people harp on you about your way of rating cards. This is unique in itself. We don't need 400 youtubers giving 1-5 star ratings. Let this be what sets you apart, and don't compromise for it except in specifically bad circumstances.

Honestly I think you could just bite the bullet and get a full JoJo-esque power web going of "Utility, complexity, reactivity" etc. You're slowly veering towards that with the multi-layered descriptors on your rating system.

It would be interesting to see more about deck-defining cards. Not just the obvious ones, but uncommon ones like astral communion and C'thun.

Your vids are always so interesting I really am surprised you are not more popular you seem to go more in depth than most players and it always makes for great videos. Not only do you talk about cards with more depth than many but you always put a lot of work in to all your videos. The editing and sound quality are some of the best and I cant wait for more Hearthstone theory vids. Keep up the great work.

I cant wait to click on the video thats "my updated rating system" where there will now be at least 50 new categories. This newest system you have is just too simply for me.

Yea you understated the power of the discard cards due to extreme synergy and oooooh Trumps here. Ya made it! 😋

I bet the new rating is something like "silver bullet" or "hate card" and its basivally cards that are just good enough to see play on their own but also hard counter a certain strategy and so their existence makes whatever they do counter a worse deck overall.

I am probably a bit late, but I hope you will still read this, Penniless. I have an idea on how you could improve the presentation of the rating system. I do like that now all components of each card are meaningful, but here is a thing: normally when you look at the card, you would think that rarity symbolises the potential power level of the card (even though not accurately) and the colour of the card means what type of card it is. For example, you wouldn't be that excited for a common card because it most likely not that powerful/interesting, but an epic card may catch your attention with some kind of special effect that is supposed to be powerful (even though it may not). In turn, both the common and the epic card can be a warrior card and have red color. The moment you see the color you immediately understand with what hero you can play it and what other cards you can play it with in one deck. So in your rating system it would be better to do the same - color of the card could symbolise the type of rating (the moment you see, for example, black card, you immediately remember that it's a tech card) and the probability of seing play by rarities (if you see that a black card is an epic, you immediately understand that it is a tech card that probably has a common use in the meta). I think that it would make it easier to remember the names of the ratings themselves, which are really confusing right now, and even if you still don't recognise the name, it would be easy to undersatand the rating itself. Another thing that comes to mind is how hard it is to look on the ratings. The effect may be caused by the gray background which is one of the features of your channel, so that probably won't change. It also maybe caused by the mostly darker art on the cards. They are spells, so most of the card is covered by this darker art and looking at a dark thing on dark background is kinda hare. I'm probably wrong in that particular regard, but you might want to look into that problem. My idea is to change the rating cards into minions, but you might be reserving that feature for those new ratings that you have in mind and didn't show us.

i think if i were to rate cards, i'd keep it a bit more simple, just 3 simple yes or no questions with a final verdict for each card. 1. is the card strong? (just the base power level of the card, no more, no less) 2. is the card relevant? (is the meta and current cards able to support this card or enable it to be effective in the right decks. examples being mossy horror or certain synergies) 3. is the card outclassed? (is this card, or is it not just outclassed by some better deck, example: mech hunter is just worse than a normal midrange hunter). maybe with the first question being how strong is the card and with the scale but otherwise i think this sort of rating system would be an efficient way for me to judge cards that covers multiple aspects to each card that people would wonder about.

Zentimo likes the new system, Zentimo thinks its easy to understand Zentimo wants the new Zentimo in my deck

While I can't vouch for the accuracy or usefulness of this rating system, I can appreciate the work you've put into this. I like how you try to get to the heart of the design of the cards and the game as a whole with this rating system. However, I do believe there are some improvements that can still be made. With just a few simple changes, I think this rating system could feel a lot more intuitive at first glance. As others seem to have pointed out, the use of the class colors to denote likelihood of appearing in the meta is fairly confusing. The class colors themselves don’t imply anything on their own, so to understand what they mean, you have to build an intuition for them before you can actually glean any information from them. When I first saw the part where you described what the class colors meant for your rating system, I almost completely tuned out and was unable to really follow your logic for choosing the colors. After seeing all the cards near the end of the video, I was able to gather a simple understanding of what the class colors meant, but this extra step in learning your rating system will probably contribute to some viewers being completely turned off by the system early on. Additionally, using the rarity gemstone to denote what complexity/type of rating you’re giving a card seems to be a bit obfuscated at this point. Right now, the rarity gems don’t seem to consistently scale with the complexity of the card, since tech cards are given no gemstone while simple cards are given a common gemstone (implying that tech cards are less complex than simple cards). Also, the rating “Mostest Stupidest”, “Deck-Creating” and “Craft it Golden” seem to have rarity gemstones arbitrarily assigned to them, further obfuscating the use of rarity gemstones to denote likelihood of seeing play. My suggestion is to just swap around what you’re using the rarity gemstone and class color to denote; make the card’s rarity gemstone denote how likely it is to see play and make the class color denote the kind/complexity of the card (aka rating class or whatever you wanna call it). I believe more viewers will have a better intuition for the system if you handle it this way, since card ratings of similar type have more of the card’s real estate devoted to explaining what kind of rating you’re giving it (aka the rating class or whatever you wanna call it). Also, the gemstone that’s used to denote how likely you are to see the card in packs in the game itself would be used to denote how likely you are to see the card used in decks in your rating system. I feel like this is more intuitive than the current system. Subsequently, there are 5 different rarity gemstones in Hearthstone (I’m counting no gemstone as a type of gemstone too), and 10 different class colors for cards (I'm counting neutral as a class color too). Choosing to denote the different aspects of your rating system in this way would also allow for the system to be more scalable in the future, since you only seem to be using up to 5 different likelihoods of cards seeing play, but there are more than 5 classifications for ratings you’re currently using (not to mention those secret other ratings you haven’t shown us). With this change, you’d be able to have up to 10 different classifications of ratings. I’d suggest to use the basic cards’ no gemstone to denote cards least likely to see play (so that “Mostest Stupidest” is the blandest-looking card ever) and to use the legendary gemstone to denote most likely to see play.

I’m not really qualified to say whether your system is better or worse than others, however I do feel that it does seem overwhelming with all its complexity and the fact that it took you 9:40 to fully explain seems to support this. The 5 star system is very flawed but I think that if a reviewer used a system with more stars (e.g. 10 perhaps) with a clear explanation of why the card is good or bad would be a simpler and more accessible system.

Dear Penniless After much thought and diliberation on the card “Spreading Plague” I have thought of what I believe a good nerf to the card that doesn’t just destroy it as a whole. Simply change the text to “Summon a 1/4 Scarab. (Insert rest of text here).” I believe this powerful enough to reduce its power significantly, while not rendering it unplayable. Normally, at the best case scenario for this card where you have 7 minions and your has none, you would have to go through a totally of 35 health simply to attack their hero. However, with this nerf, it would reduce the total to 28. Still a powerful enough wall to prevent immediate death without being oppressively good. It would still counter aggro decks with small, wide boards, but not totally shut down boards of greater height. Let me know what you think.

You don't need a rating to say that a card is a tech card. We can read. It's like having a rating for the attack of a minion.

It might sound complex, but i feel like this rating sys is at least better than 1-5*. Reason is because this way you take note on the individual value of the card itself (take skullking geist for example, it was a jade idol/evolve destroyer, but since there arent many 1-mana spell based decks in the current meta, ppl would consider this a "weak" card, when in fact it holds a pretty decent value, capable of destroying the oponent's strategy by its core, or at least milling some cards to take advantage towards fatigue).

Personally, i feel that you hit critical mass of complexity. I believe it is better to have the last, simpler method of reviewing (without semicomplex and color meaning something). At some point you either sacrifice simplicity for the sake of accuracy or the other way around. Last one was less simple than 1-5 stars, but much more accurate. This feels MUCH more complex for almost no extra accuracy gained rating cards. I'll keep watching your content, I love your take on the game and the systems behind it! Keep it up

This is pretty buckwild, but I think that once you start using this, it should be quite digestable and natural.

seems solid. i agree that the 1-5 star rating that many streamers is pretty much worse then nothing. it's better to just talk about how good you think a card will be rather then just say "it's 2 stars". i also think that trump has the worst rating system imaginable, trying to predict an entire meta is simply not possible and cards should go up and down expansion by expansion since their usefullness often changes (raid leader would be 1 star in trumps rating in all of hs's history but 3-4 stars when odd/even decks are in standard). it's also just insanely dumb to rate super strong cards 1 star because he thinks they won't see play. in fact every card he rates should probably just get a 1 or 5 star rating because it's either going to see play or not, there's no in between really.

i for one really enjoy this complex rating,but i'm the type of person that likes overly complex thing,i play path of exile after all,that's kinda of my bread and butter. and honestly,the more categories the better,i wouldn't mind having to re-watch a video to remember what something does,it's something i personally enjoy doing anyways. anyways,i'm happy you are doing something differently than a 5 star rating,sometimes i want to know more about a rating than if it will see play or not,which is irrelevant imo.

I agree with others that your system is needlessly complex. If you do stick with something along these lines, I'd also say that the names and descriptions are made way more unclear by trying to make them sound like they would on a card. In particular, "Decent, if you're Decent" would make about as much sense in any category since it can imply different things depending on how you read it. It reinforces the confusion people have with remembering what the power and complexity rating of a category entails.

Just curious, by this system would you rate the princes (Valanar, Taldaram, Keleseth) as Deck-Creating? They encourage specificity that probably wouldn't exist otherwise, but they don't seem consistent or significant enough to base an entire deck around

Amani War Bear sadly lacking lol

While I agree a 5 star system is probably lacking in complexity, I think you also lose something by making a rating system too complex. Someone can very easily understand a 5 star system, even though it is probably BS anyway. But If it requires someone watching a 12 minute video to begin to understand, then most people are going to not understand the system at all. Even I, who watched the video and ratings for the last set, often forgot ratings in the system, find a card outside the system, or thought that cards were not sufficiently objectively rated. This kind of defeats the purpose of the system. While it is a great idea to build on the rating system, it’s just a bit much I think. There has to be a way to simplify this from 15 ratings with several different subsets, down to about 5-7 with very clear and objective set goals of each rating (which something I learned in a college level psychological testing class in order to minimize subjectivity). If you want some added complexity, you could add maybe a very simple second layer for tech cards, but other than that it just becomes convoluted and not user friendly at all. TL;DR: There will never be a perfect system.... but sometimes simple is better. A more straight forward rating system with well defined perimeters to give each card its rating (so to be objective) I believe is the way to go.

am I right in guessing one of the categories (the one skulking geist almost goes in) is "Game Changing" "Battlecry: change the way the match is played."

hearthstone cannot handle that complex systems. go artifact

would you say the princes are deck defining or deck creating? :^)

Waterboy is not 3 star rating. Think about how much better certain cards are. Kobold librarian is 1 mana, sqaushling has echo, blowgill sniper has a tribe (and that card is already terrible) gadgetzan socialite has better stats (and that card is also terrible), murloc tidehunter has a tribe, kobold hermit lets you use an upgraded hero power, drywhisker armorer has better stats and can gain a lot more armor. You get the point. Waterboy is good for nothing in any deck ever. Calling waterboy fun for the arena is like also saying that blowgill sniper is a good arena card. Also, after playing these cards you can still use your hero power after. There is no point in ever playing this card, and you should give it mostest stupidest.

There is no need AT all to change your rating system. The viewer needs to put minimum effort into understanding it if they have at least some degree of knowledge of TCGs, which I believe us your target audience. I beg you not to dumb it down, it is this format that made me subscribe to your channel. I tried to watch Kilbin yesterday and it was killing me.

Would something like rhok'del'ar count as "deck defining" or" deck creating"? I could see spell hunter working without it but idk.

Mind blown 🤯

What did you said about my Millhouse?!?!??!

I highly expect Oondasta to see play. Honestly, how could it not? Maybe if it was a class card, I'd be skeptical, but as a neutral? Hunter or Druid will definitely find a way to make it work.

Wheres my 'fun' level rating system

tl;dw cost: 1-5 rating color: gray->blue->purp->red->white->gold = meta rating rarity: complexity rating, no rating = situational card legendary: deck creating cards

I personally always rate cards based on how interesting, balanced and healthy they are for the game, not power level or meta relevance. For instance, both you and trump would rate Gul'Dan 5stars because it's the single best card warlock has access to. I'd rate it 4 stars due to it being good to have a card of this type to support warlock and it fits the class really well but the auto-include nature of the card and too often being a win regardless of what deck you're playing if you draw it by turn 10 dock the card 1 star. A card like Keleseth (5 stars, craft it golden, etc) is 2 stars, it's a very interesting card but restricts design, is too polarizing as to whether you draw it or not, despite the restriction is still too universally playable so it's unhealthy for the game. Doomsayer and MCtech get 5stars because they're powerful but only in some situations, they're good to play but can be countered by the opponent and played around, they help deny certain things getting out of hand and can occasionally create really fun highlights and moments. Lorewalker Cho gets 4stars because when it does turn up, it's fun, interactive, counterable has big potential but only in the right situation and overall the game only benefits from it's existence. I do however accept that it's not a good card. This system has it's flaws too: hearthstone is too complicated to be able to rate cards perfectly and this doesn't help players just looking for "do I dust" or "will this help me climb" but as far as "does this need changing" and "is this fun" this is perfect and I personally feel that's the most important thing in hearthstone. Ps. Love your videos and your rating system, keep up the great content ^-^

Request: Add some reminder text to the rating system, below the card or at the side of it, to quickly describe what's it about. Maybe add the same hover box that Hearthstone uses in-game. (2) Mana Wyrm Sadly Lacking - Unlikely to see in a meta - Weak card - Simple card It doesn't need to be on the screen for long, people can pause the video if they want to read it. This way, recurring watchers can just take a quick look at the card title; while new players can learn at their own pace without constantly needing to return to this video. I do love that you show some - to some people obvious - synergies with other cards when explaining what makes them (e.g. complex cards) great. Please don't stop doing so. I'm a casual player, I don't know all the cards in a given set. I know my cards, and I learn about the cards of my opponents while they play them. But examples of synergies like shown is welcome information; since it's only shown in small bits at a time. Thanks for your video!

I give Penniless Player: Decent, if he’s decent

6:04 you still have the old grizzly art

bit sad there are no longer 9 middle ranks, so each one could have it's own unique color from each class.

Although I do like the rating system itself, currently it's visuals indicators are way too clouded to process. You've managed to squeeze all the hearthstone card data into your system, but at this point we're required to categorize individual indicators without reference data, while the cards blend in with the ratings. If a rating system is this complex I would suggest to first make the necessary components crystal clear, preferably without learning a database worth of knowledge, and then see which visual solution keeps this intact before squeezing it into something fancy. It looks good, but it is not practical. For example, making your own key words and stack them up. The silly thing is, I could follow the previous rating system, but I've lost that capability with this system.

Is one of the secret ratings a "silver bullet" or something of the sort? Or you consider that some tech card and that's it? I mean, it's not just a tech card, it literally destroys the combo decks it predates, and does barely anything to most other decks. PS: I love your rating, I can't care less about the colors of the cards, but the gems, number, and card text really help out encompass what you think about that card.

Peniless, i really like your videos, but please, change the background music sometimes :D

This is way too complex. You don't need 14 categories, you just need 3 questions: 1) in what decks do you play the card 2) how good is the card in these decks (power of the card) 3) will these decks work (play rate) For tech cards, replace "decks" with "decks and metas". Example: Faery dragon is a tempo card, not good enough to see play outside of dragon decks so its only home is spiteful dragon priest. In that deck, it's an ok card. Spiteful dragon priest is a mediocre deck. 3 stars power, 2.5 stars playrate.

I like how the constructive comment you chose to highlight had its very good suggestion completely ignored, as all the cards are still seemingly arbitrary colors. Nice one.

the mana and gemstone are easy to understand but the colour arent, you have to learn what they mean and i aint gonna waist my time to that

I am so confused

Yes

For F2P players or other light players, Trumps’s rating is better because they could know exactly what to craft and what to dust.Penniless’ rating system is too abstract for most of the players.

omg im not even 4 mins in and I'm getting a headache

Mana = Legislative, Color = Executive, Rarity = Judiciary. You're a Political Scientist

I'm afraid I don't understand why you are updating your rating system since I recall you saying you wouldn't be able to give as detailed thoughts about this expansion.

I am concerned your rating system is only going to get more complicated the more you try to refine it. Your custom card designs are great, but having "15 ranks" is a bit cumbersome. I would recommend staging it as 5 ranks over 4 categories or something. You could reduce complexity by taking out the card designs for levels 2 and 4. For instance, "okay in some metas", "tech card" and "excelent in most metas" are all just tech cards on a scale of 2 - 4. If you do away with two thirds of the names and portraits, the rating system will be much easier to read at a glance. So with a level 4 tech card, you know right away what the card is rated on a scale of 1-5, and which category it is being compared to. Perhaps if your still attached to your witty card descriptions you could try renaming "okay in some metas" to "bad tech card" and "excellent in most metas" to "good tech card" or something to that effect.

It's confusing to reuse design clues from the actual cards (color, rareness gem) and have them mean something completely different. If you want to use different categories, make them all use the same numeric scale. In all honesty, the value of all these reviews is not so much the condensed rating, but what the reviewers say (verbatim) about the card and how they justify the rating.

I thought the original system was just fine. This seems like too much.

Too much talk. This video makes me want to watch Trumps reviews all the much more. He may get a bunch of cards wrong but the memes make it worth it.

“Most cards in hearthstone can be rated using these f o u r t e e n ratings.” I feel like this sentence alone should highlight that, although it is very in-depth and cool in concept, is just waaaaay too complicated for someone wanting to just pick up the gist of what the meta may end up looking like. Cool nonetheless but perhaps stick to the simple 5 star formula, with perhaps going as deep as decimals like “2.5” or something. Comes off much cleaner that way and can still be used to describe a general idea of how good or not good the card will be. Keep it up man!

Too much i cant follow the infos...

Having been thinking about this system since being introduced to it, and being familiar with the commonly used rating systems; I feel like I have got a good enough grasp on it now to articulate my general understanding of it. This system requires more analysis of each card and leads to more discussion, but doesn’t bring up the actual impact that a card will have in conjunction with others. I think that it could be tweaked further to go beyond just the colors representing how likely it is to make it into the meta. Something like a golden aura to say that you think that it will actually see play and that it has had the conditions met with getting good support cards. That way the system can still be used to talk about if a card will fit into the current meta or not. A complaint I have seen is that this system is too complex. That is unfounded, this channel isn’t aimed at new players and remembering what each card represents is easy using the basic context clues printed on them. Where I do see a bit of a flaw however, isn’t in terms of the system, but rather the way it’s perceived. I don’t think this system is a replacement, nor even competition for the 1-5 system, it rather is there to serve a different niche. 1-5 I think works for pro players a lot better, they have credibility enough to not explain every little thing, and then a lot of them might not be capable of fully articulating there points on what makes a card good, but can tell if it is or not. It works to allow people to easily understand the general power scale of the expansion. The nameless “My Rating System” on the other hand goes more into the discussion of card design its self, rather than focusing on the power, it focuses on the way it plays off of other cards and the number of situations that they would be good in. The extra ratings allows better categorization and more direct descriptions of how one feels the card will operate. I think an example would work better to get my point across. If we break Hearthstone users into two categories, they would be coaches and players. Going with that idea, I feel that each system works better for one then the other. 1-5 works with players who just need to know the power and how to use the cards in an effective way, they need to quickly know what’s good and start practicing using it. The “coaches” however, break the game down. What matters to them are not what’s and where’s, but the how’s and why’s. Understanding unique interactions and having a mental backlog of every card with a unique interaction is how they operate. A simple system just wouldn’t work as well as a more detailed one, for them. Where as a “player” might not even fully understand how the systems themselves even work. Since no card is “technically” weak, the only way to go about judging cards values is based off of how it interacts with other cards and the rules. Both the systems are basing the strength of a card off of how it interacts with the rules and other cards, but how much emphasis put upon the individual card is different and there goals are different. Because of those differences they both can work, but whether or not they do is based on the individual. Both should be used (although the 1-5 system should have more variety based on how many people use it in different ways), in order to get the best results.

Post more videos!

This is absurdly complex. Come on dude please realise how ridiculous this is to your fans.

Holy shit thats my comment ...

I made sure to watch the entire video before voting/commenting.. And I can clearly say I dislike this a fuck ton lol. I appreciate the amount of time and effort you put into making a accurate rating system for cards across all fronts. But frankly you made this way too complicated. It's not hard to understand per say, more like it's just too many parts and things to remember.

Ofcourse it is logical to rate cards in the current meta or predicted future meta. Players are interested if the card is going to see play in any fun and/or viable decks. You can't say that when rating a card on it's own. This rating system is interesting, but not very relevant to current players. (You could argue this has a different target audience than e.g. Trump card reviews, which is correct, but I don't believe this rating system is the best one for the general hearthstone audience.)

Isn't Millhouse good in arena?

Out of season April fool joke? I only need 2tier, 1.Trump will be wrong about 2. 1

this is needlessly complex and kinda obnoxious. change the mana crystal to a star, the rating to be in a different location, and the class color to be adequately different that your ratings don't look like fan cards, and you would be okay. it is still needlessly complex and obnoxious, but at least it isn't also deceptive and confusing. the background color of the ribbon the card name is on, and using the last corner of the card to rate complexity, would be better. also you couldn't use a scale dissonant to your reference point. so instead of rating cards 1-5 it should be 0-10 since that is the mana range of playable cards. 5 would be on curve 6 would be decent if you are decent. instead of card complexity, you could talk about how much combo value it has.

The main problem I have with this rating system and every other rating system I've seen for Hearthstone cards is that they serve no practical purpose (beyond the fact that people like watching rating videos--by no means am I criticizing anyone for creating videos that people want to watch). Why does it matter whether a card is "Decent if you're decent" vs. "Strong in the right deck"? Of what practical benefit is that knowledge? Maybe you could say it's useful for crafting/dusting, but then why not just have 3 designations for "craft", "dust", and "average"? Or maybe you could say it's useful for discussing how the cards affect the metagame, but then why not just base the ratings upon statistical data instead of predicting subjective ratings ahead of time? And even assuming these ratings did serve some practical purpose, how could we verify that the ratings are accurate for that purpose? For example, how is a rating of "Excellent in Most Metas" falsifiable? At any one point in time, only one meta exists, so how could we tell if a card would be good in the hypothetical metas that don't exist? It might be obvious in some cases that a card was generally accurately or inaccurately rated, but how would you quantify the accuracy of a rating? If a card is rated "Fun for the Arena" but turns out to be "Okay in Some Metas" (which again, I'm not sure how you would prove that), how would you quantify that inaccuracy? Was the original prediction 0% right? 99%? The fact that we can't easily quantify the accuracy of the system indicates that its potential usefulness is highly limited. But hey, if your fans like it, and if you enjoy it, great! At the end of the day, this is a RU-vid channel about a video game. Entertainment is the goal.

You know, this would make it more needlessly complex, but I'm gonna suggest it anyways. What if you used Attack to say how strong you think it is on it's own, vs HP which is how strong it's synergies are. So if it's a card with very weak synergies but very strong on it's own, it would be like a 5/1 or a 4/1 but if it's a card that has really strong synergies along with being a very weak card without it it could be like a 2/5 or 1/5 Right now you have Mana being a rating for how good in the meta you think it would be, and the attack and HP could be just where in the meta is it weak or strong. Feel free to tell me what you think, but I can see it is very complex now, so it doesn't need another layer of being THIS complex.

This is far too complex. Card ratings aren't even important

Your system is wrong millhouse is craft it often

Way too complicated man

The problem with this rating system is that whether it’s a tech card, synergy card or basic card. For example, it’s obvious that a card like skulking geist is a tech card. This basically makes the system super safe, and not really interesting as they don’t tell you anything new and can’t be compared to other cards, because they’re different types. Also, a lot of your ratings have multiple meanings, such as “stupid, unless it isnt”. This makes it seem like you’re really hedging your bets. About your comment that this is more of a rating for game design purpose, it seems pointless. Due to classifications being quite obvious, I don’t see the point in overcomplicated categories or really a rating system at all. As you announced that you will be focusing on fewer, more interesting cases, wouldn’t it just be simpler to talk about what it is on a case by case basis? This wouldn’t oversimplify, which is more important to game design than vague comparisons. I prefer a system like trump’s, because it’s bold and provable, making it more interesting as a viewer. That’s why he gets cards so wrong sometimes (partly due to the tiny difference between the ratings) but also because it’s obvious what he meant and whether he was right.

Cute system. Not practical.

Good system, bad presentation. Anyone can remember "Higher Mana = Better Card" and "Rarer Rarity = More Complex Card", but how can someone remember "Red Card = More Likely To Be Used In The Meta Than Blue Cards"? Like it's honestly kind of ridiculous. Personally, I think you should stick to your old system, with less focus on the meta and more on the core power of the cards. It was less confusing and more unique. Trump does a better job at reviewing cards based on meta, so I see it as an unrequired addition to your system. Good day.

Not to offend, but this system is stupidly complex. People want to know how good will a card be and a star rating is simple and effective at that. I don't care that coldlight oracle can be good in fatigue decks, that doesn't make it a good card. Just raste cards with a number scale like everyone else.

Your rating system is overly complex to the point that I lost interest. I enjoy your content. But this is too much.

FIRST