This page could use with a detailed breakdown and explanation of all the data that goes on a card. I'd do this myself, but I'm not even sure of what some things mean.

I tried to give as complete a breakdown as I could. I'm not sure if the Charge information is correct. Also, we could use an image diagram of a card with all these details illustrated. --Rodamn 06:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Added the nice image which you already gave a good capturetext and corrected the charge information. Now maybe under abilities a breakdown of active/toggle/passive and wasn't there some information going around that there'll be prolly a third upgrade + the option to downgrade before trading a card? --Mysteltain 15:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Dominators are not always melee units: Giant Wyrm, Fire Dragon, Battleship and Spitfire are all 'dominators', I just found out that Death Ray, Shadow Worm and Fire worm are dominators too, I think it's enough now =) --Davy5 06:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Obtaining CardsEdit

Is there really no other way of obtaining cards than to buy them for real money? --Southbrandt 00:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

No, you can trade with other players for them. Beyond that, you could try your hand at (for the record, everything that follows, I do not recommend or condone):

  • > /trade Will wash your car in exchange for Mountaineer.
  • Begging other players for them?
  • Asking players to borrow cards with comparable card(s) as collateral?
  • Stealing from other players or hacking the servers?

Depends on how far you're willing to go, but yeah, paying for them is probably the easiest route. :) -- rodamn - shout -- 06:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Card BFP Valuation System Edit

I want to propose that we create a card valuation system that can be used to classify card values. The goal, first and foremost, is that people find it easy-to-use and intuitive. Secondly, that it gives an approximate value, because card prices definitely fluctuate based on supply and demand variables, like how many people are playing on a given day, how many new players are joining the community, etc....

Simple Value Range (SVR) System Edit

I think the most simple idea would be to use one to N dollar signs. Though '$' is very North America-centric, it is still recognized world-wide, and it's available on our keyboards unlike the euro for us lazy Americans. So, we could develop various prices ranges like:

  • $ - Under 5 BFP
  • $$ - 6 to 25 BFP
  • $$$ - 26 to 100 BFP
  • $$$$ - 101-250 BFP
  • $$$$$ - Over 250 BFP

My issue with this system is that the ranges are very cut-and-dry, so we'd have to figure out average values, and it all becomes a bit arbitrary and too subjective. Also, the over 250 BFP range needs more granularity, so we risk having 6 or more different price-range buckets. Not my favorite method, but probably the most intuitive.

Rarity-Desirability Valuation (RDV) System Edit

Here's an idea I like a little better. This idea banks on two concepts: card rarity and desirability within rarity class. Each rarity is given five levels: least desirable, less desirable, average, more desirable, most desirable. Each rarity has a different average price, for example: 5, 50, 125, and 500 for C, U, R, and UR, respectively. If a card usually sells around its average price for its rarity, it's an average card. If a card is least or less desirable, the card will be far below, or somewhat below the average price, while more and most desirable cards will be above or way above the price range. Examples:

  • Mountaineer, Avatar of Frost: (1000+ BFP) UR-$$$$$
  • Harvester, Stronghold: (650-850 BFP) UR-$$$$
  • Firedancer, Dreadnought: (350-650 BFP) UR-$$$
  • Spitfire, Shadow Worm, Church of Negation (150-350) UR-$$
  • Timeshifter Spirit, Infect, Backlash: (up to 150 Bfp) UR-$

So a table would work something like this:

Least Less Average More Most
Common C-$ n/a C-$$$ C-$$$$ C-$$$$$
2-3 4-6 7-10 11+
Uncommon U-$ U-$$ U-$$$ U-$$$$ U-$$$$$
Up to 15 16 to 35 36 to 65 66 to 100 over 101
Rare R-$ R-$$ R-$$$ R-$$$$ R-$$$$$
Up to 50 51 to 100 101 to 150 151 to 250 over 250
Ultra-Rare UR-$ UR-$$ UR-$$$ UR-$$$$ UR-$$$$$
Up to 150 151 to 350 351 to 650 651 to 1000 over 1001

This is harder to translate into an exact number range, but I think it's easier for us to categorize the cards, as it's pretty easy to gauge the relative desirability of cards based on their rarities. Thoughts? -- rodamn - shout -- 07:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

A simple way to envision the RDV system is that it is a sliding scale system and the value ranges grow larger as the cards get more rare. -- rodamn - shout -- 07:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Any comments on this? Would such a system be valuable or desired? No desire for this? Please respond here. -- rodamn - shout -- 14:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Multiplier Edit

Sorry, didn't see this before.

Hmm...I'm not sure really. Some UR go for less than 50 BFP and some over 2k BFP. How about a number scale: Rarity * Desirability = Value. With both Rarity and Desirability ranging from 1-5, for total value range of 25.

Basic Specifications
Type Creature
Faction Frost
Edition Twilight (1st)
Rarity Ultra-Rare
Additional Info
Odds per Booster 1:120
Rarity-Desirability Value 20 RankBadge PvP Lvl21
Rarity Multiplier
C 1
U 2
R 3
UR 4
P 5
Card Rarity Desire Value
Ensnaring Roots2510
Voodoo Shack414
Promo Juggernaut5420
Promo Swamp Drake5525

--Aliyon 15:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Just had a thought, we could use the PvP rank badges to represent the value. It would be a simple matter to make a template that did the math and displayed the right image once we upload the rank badges. (P.S. I can extract the rank badges directly from the pak files if needed.) --Aliyon 15:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead an uploaded the rank badges and made a quick template to demonstrate.

Card Rarity Desire RDV
Mountaineer4520 RankBadge PvP Lvl21
Ensnaring Roots2510 RankBadge PvP Lvl11
Voodoo Shack4104 RankBadge PvP Lvl05
Juggernaut3515 RankBadge PvP Lvl16
Promo Juggernaut5420 RankBadge PvP Lvl21
Promo Swamp Drake5525 RankBadge PvP Lvl26
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.