Suggestion: let's remove the terrible cards from BGA

Forum rules
Please DO NOT POST BUGS on this forum. Please report (and vote) bugs on : https://boardgamearena.com/bugs
Post Reply
User avatar
G-Mumz
Posts: 9
Joined: 27 August 2014, 03:38

Suggestion: let's remove the terrible cards from BGA

Post by G-Mumz »

There are approximately 15-20 cards that are currently implemented on BGA that are just absolutely terrible. You can take a look at the game statistics and find that these cards are rarely drafted; if they are drafted then they are rarely played; if they are played then the player rarely wins. It's poor game design to have cards that are useless in all situations; they essentially just take up space in the draft and/or punish new players that don't realize how terrible they are.

I understand that it took work to implement these cards, so if we don't want to remove them completely then can we at least get a second ban list for them? Or perhaps add them to the existing ban list? I don't see why we shouldn't ban cards for being too weak if we are already banning some for being too strong.

My suggested bans:
Loudmouth
Minstrel
Full Peasant
Paymaster
Sugar Baker
Huntsman
Sequestrator
Canal Boatman
Silokeeper
Catcher
Forest Scientist
Bean Counter
------------------
Claw Knife
Elephantgrass Plant
Garden Claw
Civic Facade
User avatar
Ranior
Posts: 212
Joined: 30 September 2011, 19:39

Re: Suggestion: let's remove the terrible cards from BGA

Post by Ranior »

I disagree with the idea of removing the weakest cards from the game. I don't think there is a good cutoff point. For example, many cards in your list I think actually do have niche uses and sometimes are worth seeing play, they are not literally never play. (Elephant Grass plant for example certainly has some niche uses, as do many of the others).

I do agree there are a handful of occupations which are close to literally never being worth an action to play....but part of the skill of the game is learning which cards to play in which scenarios, including when to leverage on average weak cards, etc. I don't believe the game becomes substantially better by removing these cards from the draft.
User avatar
msclark
Posts: 58
Joined: 06 February 2017, 23:47

Re: Suggestion: let's remove the terrible cards from BGA

Post by msclark »

I think you have a lack of imagination if you'll literally never play those cards. Don't forget that even a totally blank occupation can be worth playing if it comes with some food (Patron) or a vegetable (Bookcase) or a point (Tutor), and all of those cards are clearly better than blank in the right situation. I'm not saying they're secretly good or anything, but it's fun to ignore a card for game after game and then one day think hmm, actually this might be a good time to play Silokeeper.
User avatar
torvaldur_makan
Posts: 44
Joined: 19 January 2021, 21:34

Re: Suggestion: let's remove the terrible cards from BGA

Post by torvaldur_makan »

I agree with you and have thought about proposing something similar. The current set have a high percentage of terrible cards. That they are playable in some niche scenarios 1/100 is not good enough in my opinion. Now, in draft 8 it is not unusual that you only get 2 or 3 cards that you are excited to play and win just by NOT playing all the terrible cards your opponents play.

Now that we have some data on which cards are actually bad it could be implemented. At least it could be an option for custom games, much like play-agricola.com have a setting where you can exclude cards below a certain PWR. I find games much more enjoyable when the average card power is higher.
Post Reply

Return to “Agricola”