Need a way to filter out jokers

[Milkshake]

Be it before the game or during the game in the form of a "banish", we need a way to get rid of the absurd number of useless jokers.

In principle "unlucking" something is good in a game.
It's good, you got something new from the game, it shows progress. It makes the game richer and you potentially get stronger. But not in balatro, and there is no good reason for that. There are reasons yes, but they are not sufficient.

By unlocking some jokers that are just flat out bad (or bad 99.9% of the time), you reduce your probabilities of finding a good joker a little bit. and each jokers coming after that reduces your odds a little bit.
This is counter intuitive to the aspect of PROGRESSION and REWARD for the progression the player makes.

Now, obviously being able to banish all the jokers and control everything that happens would defeat the purpose and the fun of the game.
So what could be a way to solve that ?

1-One way could be by allowing the player to "banish" a certain number of jokers before starting the run depending on the overall progression of the player.
For exemple, winning the first white with a deck would grant you one "banish" that you can use to remove a joker from the pool.
Now some people will talk about joker rarity and what would happen if someone bans all but one rare joker.
Simply don't let people banish more than X joker of said rarity. Problem solved.

2-Another way to deal with the issue would be to let the player influence the joker pool during the run.
For exemple, there could be a system where in the shop, you have the option to either buy or "banish" the joker for 1$ (make the price dependant on the price or rarity of the joker).
It could also be a voucher allowing you to do that.
Or a "banish" tarot card that you can play on a joker in the shop.

I think this second solution would add something interesting to the game, increase strategies, increase consistency, and could also make the player take decision.
there could be obvious choice of jokers to "banish" and in some cases we would see people "banish" a joker in the early game which could have ended up being usefull later on, making them regret their choice and think better next time they decide to banish a joker.

All kind of interesting things would happen.
There would be absolutely zero drawback to adding such feature, it would help everyone. It just has to be thought correctly to make sure it's well implemented, as explained in the exemple #1.

thoughts ?

[Adam Heron]

Nope!

[Twelvefield]

You can reroll in the shop. My take is that's the simplest solution. The barrier is that you have to have some cash on hand, which gives the incentive for cash Jokers. The system as it is is elegant and simple.

[malogoss]

Originally posted by Milkshake:

Be it before the game or during the game in the form of a "banish", we need a way to get rid of the absurd number of useless jokers.

In principle "unlucking" something is good in a game.
It's good, you got something new from the game, it shows progress. It makes the game richer and you potentially get stronger. But not in balatro, and there is no good reason for that. There are reasons yes, but they are not sufficient.

By unlocking some jokers that are just flat out bad (or bad 99.9% of the time), you reduce your probabilities of finding a good joker a little bit. and each jokers coming after that reduces your odds a little bit.
This is counter intuitive to the aspect of PROGRESSION and REWARD for the progression the player makes.

Now, obviously being able to banish all the jokers and control everything that happens would defeat the purpose and the fun of the game.
So what could be a way to solve that ?

1-One way could be by allowing the player to "banish" a certain number of jokers before starting the run depending on the overall progression of the player.
For exemple, winning the first white with a deck would grant you one "banish" that you can use to remove a joker from the pool.
Now some people will talk about joker rarity and what would happen if someone bans all but one rare joker.
Simply don't let people banish more than X joker of said rarity. Problem solved.

2-Another way to deal with the issue would be to let the player influence the joker pool during the run.
For exemple, there could be a system where in the shop, you have the option to either buy or "banish" the joker for 1$ (make the price dependant on the price or rarity of the joker).
It could also be a voucher allowing you to do that.
Or a "banish" tarot card that you can play on a joker in the shop.

I think this second solution would add something interesting to the game, increase strategies, increase consistency, and could also make the player take decision.
there could be obvious choice of jokers to "banish" and in some cases we would see people "banish" a joker in the early game which could have ended up being usefull later on, making them regret their choice and think better next time they decide to banish a joker.

All kind of interesting things would happen.
There would be absolutely zero drawback to adding such feature, it would help everyone. It just has to be thought correctly to make sure it's well implemented, as explained in the exemple #1.

thoughts ?

You want thoughts?

"we need a way to get rid of the absurd number of useless jokers."
"By unlocking some jokers that are just flat out bad (or bad 99.9% of the time)"

It's less than that, but let say 1/3 (or 50) of the jokers need to be unlocked. Blueprint, Brainstorm and Stuntman. All 3 are excellent jokers to have. All 3 need to be unlocked. Now do some math.

Next time, don't start with hyperboles. They don't help you at all. Talk about the real game instead.

[Adam Heron]

Tier list brain is a terrible disease

[Milkshake]

Originally posted by malogoss:

You want thoughts?

"we need a way to get rid of the absurd number of useless jokers."
"By unlocking some jokers that are just flat out bad (or bad 99.9% of the time)"

It's less than that, but let say 1/3 (or 50) of the jokers need to be unlocked. Blueprint, Brainstorm and Stuntman. All 3 are excellent jokers to have. All 3 need to be unlocked. Now do some math.

Next time, don't start with hyperboles. They don't help you at all. Talk about the real game instead.

I'm not sure i understand your point here.
I never said all the jokers we unlock are bad.
But most of them are too specific to be useful in a run unless you have the opportunity to build around them from the start or have time to adapt (not possible past a certain point).
Therefore, it simply is true that having more jokers reduces your probabilities of a good run.
If anything, people would most likely banish the basic jokers, for exemple the vanilla +4 mult one, to increase the chances of encountering the one they unlock.

And i provided different approaches to how this could be solved. Very reasonable ones by the way.

[malogoss]

Originally posted by Milkshake:

I'm not sure i understand your point here.
I never said all the jokers we unlock are bad. (...)

You started by saying, to quote you once more:

"By unlocking some jokers that are just flat out bad (or bad 99.9% of the time)"

So ALL jokers unlocked are bad. That is exactly what you first said. If even only 1 of the 50'ish (unlocked) is good, then the % goes down to 98% bad, or less.

Say what you mean and mean what you say. It'll make your point that much clearer.

[RazzberryMocha]

Literally every joker besides maybe two (Mr. Bones and Pareidolia) are good and like 95% of jokers are broad enough to be used in multiple different builds. A ban system is absolutely unnecessary and depending on how it's implemented would either not be impactful enough or so impactful it encourages people to outright avoid certain builds/force certain builds every run. The only unlockable jokers that would "dilute" the pool would be hit the road, Mr. Bones, and golden ticket, a rare, uncommon, and one that can only show up if you have a gold card in your deck.

[Milkshake]

Originally posted by malogoss:

"By unlocking some jokers that are just flat out bad (or bad 99.9% of the time)"

So ALL jokers unlocked are bad. That is exactly what you first said. If even only 1 of the 50'ish (unlocked) is good, then the % goes down to 98% bad, or less.

No, you read me incorrectly here.
"By unlocking SOME jokers that are just flat out bad (or bad 99.9% of the time)"

Some are flat out bad.
Others are bad 99% of the time.
For exemple the flower pot is bad 99% of the time.
The order is bad 99% of the time.
You will skip them most of the time.

[Milkshake]

Originally posted by RazzberryMocha:

Literally every joker besides maybe two (Mr. Bones and Pareidolia) are good and like 95% of jokers are broad enough to be used in multiple different builds. A ban system is absolutely unnecessary and depending on how it's implemented would either not be impactful enough or so impactful it encourages people to outright avoid certain builds/force certain builds every run. The only unlockable jokers that would "dilute" the pool would be hit the road, Mr. Bones, and golden ticket, a rare, uncommon, and one that can only show up if you have a gold card in your deck.

Bro you're streching a lot with this...
Just because some jokers CAN be useful in some situation doesn't mean they are GOOD.
The vanilla +4 mult joker is not a "good" joker.
and many many jokers need a specific hand type, a specific suit.

And i don't know why you say it would be either not impactful or too impactful.
It would give the player a greater feeling of control, which is a good thing in a game like this.
It would create interesting strategic choice.

for exemple deciding if it's worth to pay 1-2-3$ to banish a joker from the shop to increase your odds of getting other jokers or to keep that money for something else.
I don't see the downside of doing something like that.

[malogoss]

Originally posted by Milkshake:

The order is bad 99% of the time.

What's the meaning of that sentence? Order of what?

[HeraldOfOpera]

Originally posted by malogoss:

Originally posted by Milkshake:

The order is bad 99% of the time.

What's the meaning of that sentence? Order of what?

The joker with the literal name "The Order". I don't feel like actually looking it up, but between the naming convention of a certain set of jokers and Balatro's love of puns I assume it's xMult if your hand contains a straight (a hand which can never be truly guaranteed at the deckbuilding level). If it's the four-of-a-kind one instead, then the comment still applies because that's the epitome of win-more.

[malogoss]

Originally posted by HeraldOfOpera:

The joker with the literal name "The Order". (...)

ty, funny how a capital letter changes everything.

[Milkshake]

Originally posted by HeraldOfOpera:

Originally posted by malogoss:

What's the meaning of that sentence? Order of what?

The joker with the literal name "The Order". I don't feel like actually looking it up, but between the naming convention of a certain set of jokers and Balatro's love of puns I assume it's xMult if your hand contains a straight (a hand which can never be truly guaranteed at the deckbuilding level). If it's the four-of-a-kind one instead, then the comment still applies because that's the epitome of win-more.

You guessed right lol
The x3 straight joker is "good" if you build a straight deck.
I would say it's an interesting choice to decide if you want it or not, to increase your odds of something else or allow for leave the possibility of straights to build around.

[RazzberryMocha]

Originally posted by Milkshake:

Originally posted by RazzberryMocha:

Literally every joker besides maybe two (Mr. Bones and Pareidolia) are good and like 95% of jokers are broad enough to be used in multiple different builds. A ban system is absolutely unnecessary and depending on how it's implemented would either not be impactful enough or so impactful it encourages people to outright avoid certain builds/force certain builds every run. The only unlockable jokers that would "dilute" the pool would be hit the road, Mr. Bones, and golden ticket, a rare, uncommon, and one that can only show up if you have a gold card in your deck.

Bro you're streching a lot with this...
Just because some jokers CAN be useful in some situation doesn't mean they are GOOD.
The vanilla +4 mult joker is not a "good" joker.
and many many jokers need a specific hand type, a specific suit.

And i don't know why you say it would be either not impactful or too impactful.
It would give the player a greater feeling of control, which is a good thing in a game like this.
It would create interesting strategic choice.

for exemple deciding if it's worth to pay 1-2-3$ to banish a joker from the shop to increase your odds of getting other jokers or to keep that money for something else.
I don't see the downside of doing something like that.

Even something as basic as the +4 mult joker will solo the first 2 antes and help a little beyond that, especially with the extra hand money you'll earn, but that's besides the point, this is about banishment, not game balance.
Roguelikes inherently need to have options provided to players that are not fantastically strong, sometimes even weak. The reason is to keep players constantly adapting to the hand they are dealt, as this increases skill expression and makes knowledge a more powerful tool. A banishment system is detrimental this, as being able to limit the kind of probability that adds skill expression is inherently against the point of roguelikes. While this system can increase player agency it will lower skill, but not even in a way that benefits bad players. Newer players will just ban jokers they dislike such as obelisk and never learn how strong those jokers can be, whereas good players will always ban the same exact jokers every game, lowering the variety to be "optimal." There's a reason this mechanic is incredibly rare in the genre.

[malogoss]

So it all boils down to this. You think some jokers are simply bad, no matter what. To be 100% transparent, I'd also put Flower Pot, that is unlocked in a first run anyway, in a similar category. I suppose I buy it once every 40 times I see it, mostly as my last hope to survive the current ante. It's simply too unreliable.

But as soon as you're talking about The Order, that's already many steps above Flower Pot. I'll buy it maybe 7-8% of the times, even if I don't like Straight builds. Sometimes the game just throws all the tools at you to play Straights, and those runs end up being easy wins.

Looking at pages 8-10 of the jokers collection, I see 5 other jokers I'd put in the same meme/overall bad category, like Flower Pot. All others are good or better. So the 5-6 bad ones get plenty of compensation from the others. For me, the debate ends there. Get a good economy, those jokers don't matter anymore. Some vouchers also help by providing cheaper rerolls, more cards in stock, cheaper packs, more interest.

If you think the already existing systems (economy and vouchers) I just mentioned are not enough to compensate for the "bad jokers", then you probably should reevaluate those systems and also reevaluate all jokers. Except for Séance and Showman, all others have helped me win in at least one run. But then Séance can still be fun in runs that are pretty much already won, while Showman is a very interesting joker when going for endless mode. We can't have 60 jokers like that in the game, it would not work, but I can easily live with those 2.

It's a very good sign that some people, like you, think that plenty of unlocks are hot garbage while others think that unlocks are mandatory to have good win rates or to beat higher stakes difficulty. I'm part of neither of those groups, but they do exist. It speaks volume on how the game is at a healthy place.