Battle healer being a rare kinda makes sense cause the heal spell came out before her, if im not mistaken, so "healing" was not a unique thing only she did. Of course, when heal spell died and we got HSpirit, they COULD have put her rarity up a little, maybe epic, cause healing was more of her thing now, but anyways. Best card, best design. Give us that Shield Maiden from clash mini as a champion or I'll commit depressed suici.
Card strength shouldn’t play into their rarity anyways. It’s actively bad when legendaries are more powerful than commons. Card complexity, though, makes more sense at higher rarities and is the right way to design an incentive. And they have done that with Champions. It’s not as bad as you make it seem in this video
I paused the video the moment he mentioned how "some of the best cards are commons and some of the worst are legendaries". Card rarity is not supposed to factor into balance. I don't want to spend 8 minutes listening to lazy commentary.
@@mimicmage That sort of game design philosophy is directly what leads to the most anti-consumer products on the market. If that’s really what you believe, then go play Raid Shadow Legends, you’re sure to love it
@@beanburrito4405 anti consumer? Y'all complaining are not making the purchase your complaining it's a cash grab from the game anti anything is your winning and complaining the game should die if everyone supports this weak shit
Evolutions made the rarity thing even more illogical. Now, even Common cards feel too complex to be on that rarity because of their Evolutions. Rarities are really now a shadow of their former self, with only Champion being the one that is still true to its name.
Battle healer is a rare and yet have a special ability The only rarity matters now is champions because they have special ability and most of them are good Expect golden knight
People always say this like it’s a bad thing but it’s just… not? It felt super crazy before because of how rare they were. Getting legendaries less was not a positive thing lmao
@@lolbitmanss_ yeah, true but firecraker , a "common" has almost the same reach, more damage, can deal better whit swarms, has more hp and have that jump back which increases her survavility even further for the same elixir While the "legendary" princess has just a little more reach, less damage, and can be killed by ANYTHING. The survivality alone turns the firecraker better than the princess most of the time and firecraker is "common"
@@nunobatista5822 the survivability or how good a card is doesn't determine what makes a legendary though, its the function, which makes princess a perfect legendary as its main function, being able to target the tower from the bridge, is unique enough to land it in the legendary category while firecracker basically shares a function with bowler.
@@lolbitmanss_ but if a common card is often best than a legendary card in every way whats the point of the weaker one being legendary? Just because a little gimmick? Firecraker also has those like the jump back and even has a evolution to completly obliterate the princess Normally in any game you would use a legendary because it was extremely hard to get, but its pretty usefull, often being better than others options in similar roles. In this case if you have both you will probably use Firecraker 90% of the time over Princess. Firecraker deals more damage, in a bigger area and since she can survive far more than the princess means she is more usefull. And the only advantage the princess has, her reach, is not enough to compete. Also the fact that Firecraker is easier to evolve is absurd. A legendary card being completely suprassed by a common card in pretty much every way is absurd
I think the purpose of rarities now is to control the management of magic items and card levelling. They design the cards so you generally run a mixture of all rarities in a deck so you can level more simultaneously rather than being bottlenecked
The problem was is that there is only a certain amount of “simple” cards you can add before you start getting too similar cards, so when supercell wanted to add these cool complex and unique cards they had to put them in rarity that’s don’t suit them
I think one reason for the rarities that is a bit more in depth is the ease in getting them. Certain cards are good even at a lower level because the do something cool (like which, tornado and skarmy). Other cards are not nearly as good if they are not tournament standard because the interaction get significantly worse if under levels (like ice golem, musketeer and ice spirit). When these cards are under levelled the musketeer dies to fireball, ice spirit does not get to the tower, and ice golem does not kill skarmy when it dies. For this reason I prefer that they are a lower rarity so that these cards can be more easily upgraded.
You mentioned that adding more legendaries makes it harder to get the one you want but this is incorrect since the odds of getting a legendaries is directly affected by the amount of legendaries there are in the game which balances out the fact that the one you want is harder to find amongst them.
I think that a logical way to determine the rarity of a card upon release would be to see how important is leveling up that card, and thus considering how much does it rely on particular abilities (such slow effects, range, duration for spells or buildings or the fact that a troop can respawn) rather than statistics (such as HP and DPS). That's because when leveling up a card one increases its statistics by 10%, and this means that if a card is harder to get (i.e. it is of a higher rarity), it is better for it to rely on things that do not need to be leveled up to be strong or useful. In this sense I can see how legendary cards are usually cards have a peculiar trait, as those traits don't usually increase in value when leveling up, and thus the card is useful even if it's harder to get. In my opinion the rarity of every card should be reconsidered applying this thought, but now it's too late, as people have spent money to get Mega (Thrash) Knight to level 14 (if not even 15) and thus it would be quite a scam for them.
I play games on mobile phone and ps and I can say that gaming has dropped a lot, microtransactions are now also in the games you buy, so you have to make an effort to find something interesting regardless of where you play
i didnt watch the video but i 100% agree with the title and thumbnail, the problem is that you cant realy remove them after they have been in the game for so long
I think part of it is that it's almost impossible to come up with new cards that should be common, without it being redundant and there being something that does the exact same thing. Commons are meant to be cards that do very basic things, like barbarians and archers. But how are you going to add a basic ranged troop that isn't just the same as archers. You need to make cards more complex for them to make sense to add to the game. I think they have changed what it means to be a common or rare so they can add more of them, which actually makes it better for F2P.
common rare and epic rarities don't really matter and they shouldn't, they seem to be chosen by the troop role, elixir cost and complexity as you said, but I also think they are given based on how easy it is to level then up, it doesn't matter at high level gameplay but in mid ladder if some cards were a lower/higher rarity it would probably make the gameplay a lot worse but being too high leveled or low leveled
I dont think it is just for money tbh. Its just that at this point, there are so many cards, which means new cards NEED some sort of special ability to feel actually unique, but just having every card be a legendary is also kind of boring (e.g. the goblin drill, which was supposed to be legendary but was made epic before release cause they had just released another legendary)
Card rarity shouldn't be a factor in balancing. This is how you get extreme pay to win games. Many other card games are like this the difference between rarities is the uniqueness in gameplay, mechanics, and character design. As it should be.
Counter argument: You're half wrong. Most legendaries come with a unique clutch/mechanic, WHILE being cost-effective, compared to the other rarities. That's why there's no common Royal Ghost, nor common Princess, etc., they're cheap. Try imagining a 3 elixir common card that can shoot at the tower without crossing the bridge, or a 3 elixir card that freezes things in place; If legendaries were any other rarity, they'd be worth at least 1 more elixir. That said, there definitely is a profit motive with the new cards they're adding.
Then honestly there is no reason why battle healer is rare, egiant is epic but the night witch is legendary, at the start maybe it made sense but after a few years new cards have been put into random rarities, and that honestly pisses me off
@@Larry1631 yeah, battle healer should definitely be an epic. As for night witch, she becomes a big problem when your tower is distracted and your baby dragon out of cycle(assuming there's no golems or giants to distracting it). An epic rarity night witch would probably have cost 5 elixir like the other 2 witches, making her a bad card again.
I think part of the issue is that supercell only wants to release cards with new and unique effects because they are what generate the most hype and interest. If the archers were released in 2024, they would be seen as boring and lazy on the developers’ part. However if every new card needs to be unique and interesting then it’s hard to make cards for the lower rarities.
I gotta disagree about them making Legendaries more for money, there's only so far you cam go with "common cards are basic" style of design before it gets boring and cards like Elixir Golem, Fire Cracker, Electro Giant could br bumped up in rarity and they'd still fit in. Royale is at the point where if a new card is added it _has_ to be unique, but then that would mean every new card ks a Legendary but there's a reason they aren't.
The "devs" have nothing to do with it... They just do what they're told to do, what they're paid to do... Blame the directors board at supercell who took those poor decision 💩
Problem, they aren't as bad as you describe like they are bad but not that bad, the reason they aren't consistent is dependent on the card but the ones that come to mind are the royal giant and the elite barbarians which were of lower rarity because it means more play styles for lower latter which granted backfired horribly but that doesn't change the fact that it was ment for them, also higher rarity aren't that hard to level uo if you know what you are doing also they nerf cards when they are overpowered day one which dismantles your claim that supercell is all for the money and are willing to turn clash Royale into a pay to win game rather than a skill based game, now they do want the money and are willing to do a lot of things that players would not like but at the same time they are willing to sacrifice short term gains in exchange to allow themselves to maintain profits mid to long term, stop being so negative and see that they aren't Nestle or ea they are rather normal not willing to sacrifice the entire game and business just to squeeze every last bit of money out of a player no matter how much they want to, they are a company who weighs the pros and cons of each action and making more cards for profit isn't one of them mostly because of the fact that they would have rushed more cards like they did in the past which they stopped because the cards were a buggy mess and players didn't like that with the perfect example being the executioner which on arrival was a vary buggy mess, if they were as bad as you say they are then this game would be more similar to clash of clans which is certainly a vary pay to win but that was that type of game really
honestly, I never felt there are too many cards that dont feel like their specific rarity. RG like you said is fair, but the only card I feel like absolutely ignored rarities is the firecracker. knockback after every shot and projectiles that have an 11 tile range, which is absolutely insane when you consider the princess has a 9 tile range and magic archers arrow travels 11 tiles, so that kind of range was obviously reserved for higher rarity cards. She absolutely shouldve been a legendary, epic wouldve even felt low
At some point, they just started arbitrarily adding cards to random rarities. With A slight exception of legendarys. Even then, night witch Exist.
Night witch felt legendary at launch
the night witch meta made it feel like it deserved the legendary, but after they removed her ability and nerfed her definitely not.
Pre nerf night witch made her feel actually legendary due to her ability to spawn bats at death which was pretty OP back then
I renember when she was first release and hoh boy. She easily take down a tower left alone with mass bats
nah, at the start, legendary card = OP and unique card, not special ability card. And night witch just OP at her launch
I still remember when clash royale was released and i invited my friends to download it lol, good old days of simple meta and cards.
Battle healer being a rare kinda makes sense cause the heal spell came out before her, if im not mistaken, so "healing" was not a unique thing only she did. Of course, when heal spell died and we got HSpirit, they COULD have put her rarity up a little, maybe epic, cause healing was more of her thing now, but anyways.
Best card, best design. Give us that Shield Maiden from clash mini as a champion or I'll commit depressed suici.
Brawler reference
Still not make sense, electric wizard do the same thing as zap but are a legendary. Same for ice wizard and inferno dragon
No it doesn't make sense
Yes she's best card best girl
Yes add Shield Maiden please
Ken reference
@@xtremenx1256 Electro wizard is the only card that can attack multiple troops, but does not have area damage.
The only rarity that matters is legendary. It’s cards that offer unique mechanics for their cost compared to other cards.
Champions have better mechanics anyway lol
@@jackmclaughlin9911 thats why they are a tier up
@@amrmaisara2416 Ik, but the commenter said that the only one that mattered was legendary, and didn’t mention champion
I also remember a time when Seth said in an interview that the Mega Minion should've bin a common card.
Card strength shouldn’t play into their rarity anyways. It’s actively bad when legendaries are more powerful than commons. Card complexity, though, makes more sense at higher rarities and is the right way to design an incentive. And they have done that with Champions. It’s not as bad as you make it seem in this video
I paused the video the moment he mentioned how "some of the best cards are commons and some of the worst are legendaries". Card rarity is not supposed to factor into balance. I don't want to spend 8 minutes listening to lazy commentary.
The most powerful cards should be the most rare ones. How it doesn't make any sense to you is beyond me
@@mimicmage That sort of game design philosophy is directly what leads to the most anti-consumer products on the market. If that’s really what you believe, then go play Raid Shadow Legends, you’re sure to love it
@@mimicmageyou really dont get it
@@beanburrito4405 anti consumer? Y'all complaining are not making the purchase your complaining it's a cash grab from the game anti anything is your winning and complaining the game should die if everyone supports this weak shit
Evolutions made the rarity thing even more illogical. Now, even Common cards feel too complex to be on that rarity because of their Evolutions. Rarities are really now a shadow of their former self, with only Champion being the one that is still true to its name.
Battle healer is a rare and yet have a special ability
The only rarity matters now is champions because they have special ability and most of them are good
Expect golden knight
Battle healer at the time of release shared an ability with heal spell. Take it up with that bottle.
@@SuperDestroyerFoxoh shit i forgot the heal spell exits 💀
Golden knight is good he just isn’t meta
It don't even feel the same when u get a legendary
People always say this like it’s a bad thing but it’s just… not? It felt super crazy before because of how rare they were. Getting legendaries less was not a positive thing lmao
I cant lie, i still think legendries feel like their role. they still are the most "special" cards, with epics pretty close behind
Not really, at least not like before look at firecraker and princess for example
@@nunobatista5822princess is the only troop that can shoot across the river
@@lolbitmanss_ yeah, true but firecraker , a "common" has almost the same reach, more damage, can deal better whit swarms, has more hp and have that jump back which increases her survavility even further for the same elixir
While the "legendary" princess has just a little more reach, less damage, and can be killed by ANYTHING.
The survivality alone turns the firecraker better than the princess most of the time and firecraker is "common"
@@nunobatista5822 the survivability or how good a card is doesn't determine what makes a legendary though, its the function, which makes princess a perfect legendary as its main function, being able to target the tower from the bridge, is unique enough to land it in the legendary category while firecracker basically shares a function with bowler.
@@lolbitmanss_ but if a common card is often best than a legendary card in every way whats the point of the weaker one being legendary? Just because a little gimmick?
Firecraker also has those like the jump back and even has a evolution to completly obliterate the princess
Normally in any game you would use a legendary because it was extremely hard to get, but its pretty usefull, often being better than others options in similar roles.
In this case if you have both you will probably use Firecraker 90% of the time over Princess.
Firecraker deals more damage, in a bigger area and since she can survive far more than the princess means she is more usefull. And the only advantage the princess has, her reach, is not enough to compete.
Also the fact that Firecraker is easier to evolve is absurd.
A legendary card being completely suprassed by a common card in pretty much every way is absurd
2:29 yeah, rocket so complex he missed literally EVERY troop 🤣
the way you dissect complex topics is awe-inspiring!
Firecracker should be legendary
Imagine if it came out after the princess. Essentially the same but one has evo but besides that firecracker way too complex😶
@@markhumphreys4496fire cracker did come out after princess, like years after lmao
If MK launched today he would be a Champion 100% sure lol
Knight is prob most built off melee troop… and skeles:bats, goblins:minions, goblin brawler:mega minion…
I think the purpose of rarities now is to control the management of magic items and card levelling. They design the cards so you generally run a mixture of all rarities in a deck so you can level more simultaneously rather than being bottlenecked
The problem was is that there is only a certain amount of “simple” cards you can add before you start getting too similar cards, so when supercell wanted to add these cool complex and unique cards they had to put them in rarity that’s don’t suit them
I think one reason for the rarities that is a bit more in depth is the ease in getting them. Certain cards are good even at a lower level because the do something cool (like which, tornado and skarmy). Other cards are not nearly as good if they are not tournament standard because the interaction get significantly worse if under levels (like ice golem, musketeer and ice spirit). When these cards are under levelled the musketeer dies to fireball, ice spirit does not get to the tower, and ice golem does not kill skarmy when it dies. For this reason I prefer that they are a lower rarity so that these cards can be more easily upgraded.
You mentioned that adding more legendaries makes it harder to get the one you want but this is incorrect since the odds of getting a legendaries is directly affected by the amount of legendaries there are in the game which balances out the fact that the one you want is harder to find amongst them.
I think that a logical way to determine the rarity of a card upon release would be to see how important is leveling up that card, and thus considering how much does it rely on particular abilities (such slow effects, range, duration for spells or buildings or the fact that a troop can respawn) rather than statistics (such as HP and DPS). That's because when leveling up a card one increases its statistics by 10%, and this means that if a card is harder to get (i.e. it is of a higher rarity), it is better for it to rely on things that do not need to be leveled up to be strong or useful. In this sense I can see how legendary cards are usually cards have a peculiar trait, as those traits don't usually increase in value when leveling up, and thus the card is useful even if it's harder to get. In my opinion the rarity of every card should be reconsidered applying this thought, but now it's too late, as people have spent money to get Mega (Thrash) Knight to level 14 (if not even 15) and thus it would be quite a scam for them.
Thing is it's not even hard to upgrade legendaries specials are harder to upgrade
I can't disagree with a single thing you said in this video. Spot on
I play games on mobile phone and ps and I can say that gaming has dropped a lot, microtransactions are now also in the games you buy, so you have to make an effort to find something interesting regardless of where you play
4:02 I think the reason the Battle Healer and Heal Spirit are rare cards is because the Heal Spell was a rare card.
Firecracker being a common is just insane
i didnt watch the video but i 100% agree with the title and thumbnail, the problem is that you cant realy remove them after they have been in the game for so long
I think part of it is that it's almost impossible to come up with new cards that should be common, without it being redundant and there being something that does the exact same thing. Commons are meant to be cards that do very basic things, like barbarians and archers. But how are you going to add a basic ranged troop that isn't just the same as archers. You need to make cards more complex for them to make sense to add to the game. I think they have changed what it means to be a common or rare so they can add more of them, which actually makes it better for F2P.
common rare and epic rarities don't really matter and they shouldn't, they seem to be chosen by the troop role, elixir cost and complexity as you said, but I also think they are given based on how easy it is to level then up, it doesn't matter at high level gameplay but in mid ladder if some cards were a lower/higher rarity it would probably make the gameplay a lot worse but being too high leveled or low leveled
we need a legendary evolution electro wizard or fisherman
I bet my money on Tencent with this
Honestly it feels like only normal cards,evos are the only rarities now
I never knew about Barbarian Launcher.
Even most people dont even use champions in deck nowadays
You're tripping dude little prince exists
@@Anomalocaris98 he fell off ngl
@@buckylebuccaneer904 46% usage in GC lilbro
@@Anomalocaris98 Prople use him cuz he is OP, not because he is champion lmao, there are tons of deck out there without a champ
@@LOL_MANN So, champions are good then, lol. The log is the only one used in most decks, yet nobody says anything about legendaries being bad. L take.
I dont think it is just for money tbh. Its just that at this point, there are so many cards, which means new cards NEED some sort of special ability to feel actually unique, but just having every card be a legendary is also kind of boring (e.g. the goblin drill, which was supposed to be legendary but was made epic before release cause they had just released another legendary)
Card rarity shouldn't be a factor in balancing. This is how you get extreme pay to win games. Many other card games are like this the difference between rarities is the uniqueness in gameplay, mechanics, and character design. As it should be.
Counter argument: You're half wrong. Most legendaries come with a unique clutch/mechanic, WHILE being cost-effective, compared to the other rarities. That's why there's no common Royal Ghost, nor common Princess, etc., they're cheap. Try imagining a 3 elixir common card that can shoot at the tower without crossing the bridge, or a 3 elixir card that freezes things in place; If legendaries were any other rarity, they'd be worth at least 1 more elixir. That said, there definitely is a profit motive with the new cards they're adding.
Then honestly there is no reason why battle healer is rare, egiant is epic but the night witch is legendary, at the start maybe it made sense but after a few years new cards have been put into random rarities, and that honestly pisses me off
@@Larry1631 yeah, battle healer should definitely be an epic. As for night witch, she becomes a big problem when your tower is distracted and your baby dragon out of cycle(assuming there's no golems or giants to distracting it). An epic rarity night witch would probably have cost 5 elixir like the other 2 witches, making her a bad card again.
@@Messy3264 but theres really nothing unique about night witch
@@Larry1631 she spawns air troops
@@Larry1631battle healer is rare because heal spell was a rare spell before being removed
I think part of the issue is that supercell only wants to release cards with new and unique effects because they are what generate the most hype and interest. If the archers were released in 2024, they would be seen as boring and lazy on the developers’ part. However if every new card needs to be unique and interesting then it’s hard to make cards for the lower rarities.
I gotta disagree about them making Legendaries more for money, there's only so far you cam go with "common cards are basic" style of design before it gets boring and cards like Elixir Golem, Fire Cracker, Electro Giant could br bumped up in rarity and they'd still fit in.
Royale is at the point where if a new card is added it _has_ to be unique, but then that would mean every new card ks a Legendary but there's a reason they aren't.
More like why rarities don’t make sense
I miss old Clash royal, everything got worse today
I don’t think legendareis should be better, but definitely have something unique
Gratz but he doesn't like little kids 😂
the game us peak unbalanced rn…there are only certain decks you can use to counter duchess…that makes zero sense if everyone just shows up w it
bro said more different
I mean I still remember the time when the Mini Pekka was an epic and the prince was a rare card. But then later they would swap their rarities.
That did not happen
@@okok-ms5ooit did search it up
@okok-ms5oo it did happen their rarities changed post release
@@lolbitmanss_ im pretty sure they changed before the actual game launch
@okok-ms5oo "changed post release" look it up on Google if you aren't sure, all the informations there.
Just compare firecracker whit princess for example, or firecraker whit regular archers
The "devs" have nothing to do with it... They just do what they're told to do, what they're paid to do... Blame the directors board at supercell who took those poor decision 💩
They removed rarities from the wrong game
Legendary cards dont feel legendary anymore
It is called legendary rarity and not legendary strenght
Problem, they aren't as bad as you describe like they are bad but not that bad, the reason they aren't consistent is dependent on the card but the ones that come to mind are the royal giant and the elite barbarians which were of lower rarity because it means more play styles for lower latter which granted backfired horribly but that doesn't change the fact that it was ment for them, also higher rarity aren't that hard to level uo if you know what you are doing also they nerf cards when they are overpowered day one which dismantles your claim that supercell is all for the money and are willing to turn clash Royale into a pay to win game rather than a skill based game, now they do want the money and are willing to do a lot of things that players would not like but at the same time they are willing to sacrifice short term gains in exchange to allow themselves to maintain profits mid to long term, stop being so negative and see that they aren't Nestle or ea they are rather normal not willing to sacrifice the entire game and business just to squeeze every last bit of money out of a player no matter how much they want to, they are a company who weighs the pros and cons of each action and making more cards for profit isn't one of them mostly because of the fact that they would have rushed more cards like they did in the past which they stopped because the cards were a buggy mess and players didn't like that with the perfect example being the executioner which on arrival was a vary buggy mess, if they were as bad as you say they are then this game would be more similar to clash of clans which is certainly a vary pay to win but that was that type of game really
E golem sucks. He gives wins. He should be common. 😂
I dont think you’ve seen an actual egolem deck
@antibodih I play pekka so when i see e golem I get excited. Mmm free elixir
honestly, I never felt there are too many cards that dont feel like their specific rarity. RG like you said is fair, but the only card I feel like absolutely ignored rarities is the firecracker. knockback after every shot and projectiles that have an 11 tile range, which is absolutely insane when you consider the princess has a 9 tile range and magic archers arrow travels 11 tiles, so that kind of range was obviously reserved for higher rarity cards. She absolutely shouldve been a legendary, epic wouldve even felt low
Your greedy argument doesn’t make sense. Epics are easier to obtain and level than rares.
💀💀 epics are easier to obtain 💀💀 right
This is a bad take
Not same thing for champions.