Gold Stake is Absolutely Awful (Edit: New Patch is Blessed)

[TypeAtahuta]

Let me start by saying that if you think Stakes are this game's Slay the Spire Ascensions then immediately remove that idea from your head.

Balatro on its base difficulty is amazing. Addictive. Utterly immaculately designed. Which is why I am baffled that such a talented dev can produce such an awful "difficulty" setting. By the time you reach the Orange stake, things become a literal slot machine RNGfiesta. You can RELIABLY beat the game on its base difficulty I reckon 90% of the time as long as you know what you're doing but the Gold Stake is specifically designed to sap out all the fun from this game.

Because imagine this. What is the best part of Balatro? Manipulating your deck and getting special Joker builds that allow you to do crazy combos. How do you do this? By getting gold and buying stuff from the shop. Without gold a run is nothing.

Now what does Gold stake and the lesser stakes do? They completely kneecap your gold gain maling you entirely rely on RNG Jokers or hoping for good skip rewards.

That's like if the Ascensions in Slay the Spire didn't make encounters difficult but just gave you less card rewards and card draw and relic opportunities. In Ascension 20 the game introduces double Act 3 bosses. This is interesting. Why? Because the Act 3 bosses are specifically designed to "counter" certain builds. So adding two of them makes deckbuilding during an A20 run genuinely engaging and endlessly interesting. Gold Stake in Balatro on the flip side just makes it so that you have less opportunities to engage with the best part of the game which is modifying your run through the shop because you have no gold. I can't imagine playing Slay the Spire on lower difficulties meanwhile I can't imagine playing Balatro in anytging but the base difficulty.

I have no ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ idea what the dev is smoking by making full Gold Stakes for every Jooer and Deck an actual cheevo. It's not skillful whatsoever just a test of patience.

tl;dr - Gold Stake (ironically) completely kneecaps your gold gain during a run leading to MORE RNG and less chances for the player to experience the best part of the game which is coming up with crazy combos.

Edit: These rebalancing on Gold Stake is great. Some tuning here and there but I think I might actually come back to the game now to finish the gold stake cheevos.

[Goblin]

Originally posted by TypeAtahuta:

There's no skill in holding R and hoping that you get a good skip reward.

Oh look, it's another person who cuts their number of jokers and potential buffoon packs seen before ante 2 by between 33% and 66% and then complains finding a good joker is too unlikely.

[TypeAtahuta]

Oh don't start with me. Gold Stake is obnoxious as is.

Holding R to see if you get a free shop tag or even the +5 gold tag is less mind numbing than having to play through the first round every time on the off chance of seeing a Joker you might not be able to afford because "lol no small blind gold".

[malogoss]

Originally posted by TypeAtahuta:

If the difficulty being tougher was all it was then it would be no problem. Like I said, Ascension 20 Slay the Spire is really difficult and most people would agree that the higher Ascensions just make the game more fun overall.

But Balatro's stakes are specifically designed to be as unfun and RNG-heavy as possible. There's no skill in holding R and hoping that you get a good skip reward. I was expecting the difficulty increase to make things more engaging not make things more braindead.

And sure its optional but the fact that the dev thought it was reasonable to make it so that there are two achievements dedicated to getting gold stake on all decks and Jokers is just absurd.

So both games get tougher as difficulty level rises. One is good because of it, the other is bad because of it.

In StS, less than 7% of players have the achievement for beating ascension 20. So how can you claim that MOST players enjoy it.

Holding R requires no skill. As clicking a mouse button requires no skill in any game, unless you have to click it 9 times per second. The ability to evaluate the tags value is a skill.

Some achievements are related to beating the game at gold stake. Fine. The existence of such achievements does not make gold stake worst in any way or form.

You raise a lot of points. But I'll tell you, from someone who think that gold stake is fun, the points you're making are a lot of air, with no substance.

Maybe stick to "I don't like gold stake", don't try to prove your point. An opinion is easy to have, impossible to prove.

[CMDR Shven]

Originally posted by malogoss:

It's weird to me how some people have no problem with white stake and actually mention how much fun they have playing it, but then complain about other stakes.

It's as if tougher difficulty being tougher is a problem. What were you expecting?

It's more the problem that many people cannot win a single game on Gold, and in order to "complete" the game you're expected to win at gold with every joker at some point, and winning Gold with anything less than perfect synergy is already nearly impossible. So trying to do so with "weaker" or highly situational Jokers is going to be actually impossible.

[malogoss]

Originally posted by CMDR Shven:

It's more the problem that many people cannot win a single game on Gold, and in order to "complete" the game you're expected to win at gold with every joker at some point, and winning Gold with anything less than perfect synergy is already nearly impossible. So trying to do so with "weaker" or highly situational Jokers is going to be actually impossible.

If some players have an issue with achievements being what they are, fine. But there's ways to know that before buying a game.

If some players have an issue with some game achievements requiring possibly months worth of playtime, then they should ask in here forums "how easy is it to 100% the game?" before buying ANY game. Because it's not that uncommon for a game to have grindy/tough achievements.

I often ask about a game's content, in Steam forums, before deciding whether I'll buy it or not. It works out pretty well, people should do the same, it takes 2 minute.

Personally I don't feel bad that there's 1 achievement I'll likely never get in Balatro. It does not matter to me. I enjoyed hunting all other achievements. The only thing I'm sad about is that today, I got one achievement from a game bug.

It really comes down to knowing what ruins a game for you. Flashing lights. Grind. Puzzles. Tough achievements. Jump scare. RNG. All of those can be a positive thing for a game to have for someone and negative for someone else.

I personally don't measure how fun a game is by how easy/tough it is to 100% it.

[Xuande]

I only play on Gold Stake (after being a pre-demo Playtester) and find it fine?

Ideally, I like it when optimal play doesn't lead to a 100% winrate, because that makes it harder to optimize or min/max a strategy. Yes, this means sometimes losing on Ante 1 or 2, but that's not a bad thing - the alternative is for it to be always correct to greed those Antes rather than make difficult choices on how greedy to be.

Its doable without save scumming or abusing obvious balance outliers (Cavendish), which is enough for me.

[0xxian]

Originally posted by Xuande:

I only play on Gold Stake (after being a pre-demo Playtester) and find it fine?

Ideally, I like it when optimal play doesn't lead to a 100% winrate, because that makes it harder to optimize or min/max a strategy. Yes, this means sometimes losing on Ante 1 or 2, but that's not a bad thing - the alternative is for it to be always correct to greed those Antes rather than make difficult choices on how greedy to be.

Its doable without save scumming or abusing obvious balance outliers (Cavendish), which is enough for me.

Can I ask what sort of rate you win your gold stakes at Xuande? I'm currently only winning maybe 1 in 6 of my gold stake games and I'm kinda hitting a wall improvement wise having got it down from about 1 in 10. I too like the optimal play not always equalling a 100% winrate but the staitisfying level for that for me would be optimal play winning about 80% of games. Now it's quite possible that's attainable and I'm just not playing well enough but I really have reached the point where I'm finding it difficult to improve and it would be good to get a gauge of how much better I could possibly get.

[Ronald Brain]

Originally posted by TypeAtahuta:

I'm a bit more apprehensive about giving the player more options to buff their deck because the player in Balatro is already incredibly powerful. So buffing them up to be able to match Gold Stake will just make the base difficulty even easier than it already is. However, if we run under the assumption that the game will have cursed mechanics, negative modifiers and mini boss blinds/elites for the smaller blinds then maybe more buffs for the player would be good too.

That draw/cycling idea is pretty good though. In my head it would be like this.

White Seal - If this card is discarded, draw two more.

Alternatively we can take inspiration from Wildfrost for more consistency:

Royal Seal - This card is always drawn in your opening hand.

And if we add negative modifiers to the game I think a funny mechanic would be adding sleeves as an additional card enhancement. If a card is "Sleeved" it can't be affected by negative effects.

I think a fairer compromise would be something like New Game+: Let players start with one or two buff, but only on higher difficulty onward. Something from the beta build, like most played hand starts at Level 3, starts with one Joker, random cards get foil/holo/poly... would offset some of the nerf on higher stakes, even if slightly.

[Rithrin]

Just got my first Gold Stake win. It probably took me a dozen tries? I'd say the difficulty:enjoyment ratio is perfect around Black Stake. Small Blind having no base reward makes for very interesting skip choices, rather than never skipping like I usually do, and Eternal jokers also are interesting because they can be a negative thing, but also can be part of your strategy.

I find once you add that max hand penalty and the increasing costs on packs, it just feels like there are less fun choices to make, and the game is more one-dimensional.

But you can definitely win, even if it's not even 20% of the time.

[Xuande]

Originally posted by Oxxian:

Originally posted by Xuande:

I only play on Gold Stake (after being a pre-demo Playtester) and find it fine?

Ideally, I like it when optimal play doesn't lead to a 100% winrate, because that makes it harder to optimize or min/max a strategy. Yes, this means sometimes losing on Ante 1 or 2, but that's not a bad thing - the alternative is for it to be always correct to greed those Antes rather than make difficult choices on how greedy to be.

Its doable without save scumming or abusing obvious balance outliers (Cavendish), which is enough for me.

Can I ask what sort of rate you win your gold stakes at Xuande? I'm currently only winning maybe 1 in 6 of my gold stake games and I'm kinda hitting a wall improvement wise having got it down from about 1 in 10. I too like the optimal play not always equalling a 100% winrate but the staitisfying level for that for me would be optimal play winning about 80% of games. Now it's quite possible that's attainable and I'm just not playing well enough but I really have reached the point where I'm finding it difficult to improve and it would be good to get a gauge of how much better I could possibly get.

With the disclaimer that I frequently make ordering mistakes due to either multitasking or APM laziness (so I perform poorly with Joker/card lineups that require frequent reordering), I'm not any better than your winrate, maybe even a little worse as I haven't played much since the initial playtest nearly a year ago.

So far I have a basic goal of first clearing each gold stake, and have around four done, but that's also over a span of ~30-50 runs.

My guess is that "proper" play can probably get close to 50% winrate, but I'm too impatient to get near that level.

[warking]

Originally posted by TypeAtahuta:

Originally posted by kotamine:

The stakes are just obnoxious, and it's very clear they're an afterthought.

The craziest part is that the dev already almost figured it out. Eternal Jokers are amazing. They're the kind of mechanics I want to see more of in Balatro --- negative modifiers.

Most of the modifiers/enhancements for the cards and Jokers rqnge from neutral to positive. Eternal Jokers are of course bad because you have to commit to them and can't be pvioted off of. But at the same time, an Eternal Joker synergizes with any card that destroys other Jokers making it so that an Eternal Joker on an actually good Joker keeps it protected forever.

Ideally, this is how the dev makes the game difficult without just completely going "LOL NO GOLD FOR YOU" by introducing engaging mechanics that while they might be bad outcomes but they are outcomes the player can mitigate through skill:

• Wide Joker = Joker takes two slots.
  
• Nailed Joker = Joker stays nailed on the right most spot.
  
• Fleeting Joker = Joker lasts for X amount of rounds.
  
• DAMAGED Joker = Joker has a 1 out of 4 chance to activate in a turn.
  
• Scratched Card = This card has no suit.
  
• Deviant Card = Forcefully discard another card in your hand upon play.
  
• Anchor Card = -1.5X Mult.
  
• Bootleg Card = 1 out of 2 chance to be debuffed.

Basically imagine the curses from Slay the Spire but taken even further to act as a constant threat and adversity in this game beyond the Boss Blinds. The dev is only one guy from what I heard so I'll give him a break.

But an expansion pack entirely revolving around cursed mechanics plus a rework of the Stakes would be amazing.

This right there is an amazing Idea.
Most of my mid-high run stack ends in ant 1-3 because ITs basically impossible without either money making joker and some decent mult+chip joker to get the ball rolling.

If someone made a mod using modified jokers like this to replace the ants I'll play it for sure

Small rant: Completionist ++ such a dumb idea.

[warking]

*I dont really mind not having a 100% either but I feel like im restarting to many times near the beginning. I think starting with a random joker really couldnt hurt

Or sometimes during high ant when you finish your build to soon (like flush for example) and the ant boss just happen to be disabling your entire deck with only 2 turns (if no skips) to adapt.. but honestly that part is fine if you had some money saved up (which you usually do at this point)

[Jakkson K]

The last fun stake is Black Stake as I can consistently get a run going. But even with the best decks for wining the first 2 antes (Yellow, Painted, Checkered, Plasma) I die in ante 1 50% of the time on Blue Stake or higher because -1 discard means that you can't form hands easily. Purple compounds this. Orange makes it so 50% of builds are unviable and you need a good ante 1 or you are screwed. and Gold requires you to luck out with the best possible luck and use mechanics that feel like cheating to even have a chance.

[Jakkson K]

Originally posted by malogoss:

So both games get tougher as difficulty level rises. One is good because of it, the other is bad because of it.

In StS, less than 7% of players have the achievement for beating ascension 20. So how can you claim that MOST players enjoy it.

There is a difference between fun difficult and annoying difficult. Fun Difficulty reward player's mastery and skill by making unique challenging situations and making the game a rewarding puzzle. StS veterans can get a very consistent winrate on ascension 20 some even boasting 60%+ of all started A20 runs winning.

Annoying Difficulty is like a lot of shooter games where they just buff the HP and damage numbers and turn every fight into a slog. Not rewarding skill so much as narrowing the viable strategies down to 1 or 2 meta options and rewarding player patience and endurance.
The best Balatro player I know was talking about how only 10% of runs orange stake or higher he plays wins.

Also most fails of StS happen in the act 3 or due to risky decisions in act 2 which means the game gives you time to properly develop your deck and stabilize. Even on A20 nobody is dying to the first encounter, not even the second encounter.

And yet most runs of Gold Stake Balatro lose in ante 1 or ante 2. Getting to ante 4 means you have already won unless you get screwed over big time. That isn't a satisfying gameplay experience.

[goobie snoobert]

Originally posted by Xuande:

I only play on Gold Stake (after being a pre-demo Playtester) and find it fine?

Ideally, I like it when optimal play doesn't lead to a 100% winrate, because that makes it harder to optimize or min/max a strategy. Yes, this means sometimes losing on Ante 1 or 2, but that's not a bad thing - the alternative is for it to be always correct to greed those Antes rather than make difficult choices on how greedy to be.

Its doable without save scumming or abusing obvious balance outliers (Cavendish), which is enough for me.

perfect play should result in a win most if not all of the time. A20 in StS is hard, but very possible to winstreak if you're good at the game. i'd like to see anyone getting winstreaks on gold stakes higher than 2