Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Poll

How Should Empires Cards be Ranked

Split Piles Should be Ranked for both Cards and Debt Should Be $6+ Cost
- 31 (41.3%)
Split Piles Should Only be Ranked for Top Card and Debt Should Be $6+ Cost
- 9 (12%)
Split Piles Should be Ranked for both Cards and Debt Should Only be Ranked Debt
- 23 (30.7%)
Split Piles Should Only be Ranked for Top Card and Debt Should Only be Ranked Debt
- 5 (6.7%)
Other (please state)
- 7 (9.3%)

Total Members Voted: 74


Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5  All

Author Topic: Qvist Rankings and Empires  (Read 42050 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

drsteelhammer

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1527
  • Shuffle iT Username: drsteelhammer
  • Respect: +1470
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #75 on: June 20, 2016, 01:34:23 pm »
0

I have been convinced that Debt cards should be ranked in their "converted $" cost bracket. But I still think it's trivially true that split piles should have both their cards ranked separately. I mean let's say that Card A (the top card of the pile) is strong, but Card B (the bottom card of the pile) is weak. How do you rank that in a way that's better than ranking them separately?

You rank them as if the top card that was a single pile containing 5cards (so a bit weaker than the card on its own, if it is a card that you want several copies of) plus the little strength the bottom card has that might become available. The end result will probably be that the combined pile will be rated a little lower than the strong top card, or quite a bit lower if you really want more tha three copies of the card (for example Lab/Scout would be quite worse than lab, Rebuild/Scout would probably be almost as good as rebuild alone).

I agree that this is not necessarily better because in this scenario, ranking them seperately does no harm, but if you turn the example on its head it becomes obvious to me why they should be ranked together:

If the bottom card is better, how do you rank that one? You have to consider the availability of the card which is the strongest feature of the card in this case, so the rank for the bottom card would be nearly equal to the joint rank for that reason. Due to this, you have two ranks for the split pile: One bad rank for the bad card, and one rank for the whole split pile (since its ranking is equivalent to the bottom card).

Of course, you can disagree with the last paragraph and say the availability of the card shouldn't matter, but what good does your ranking do if you say the bottom card is the best in the game, you'll just never buy it since you have to buy five garbage cards?

In other words, regardless whether the bottom card or the top card is the stronger one, the ranking of the strong card is equivalent to the ranking of the whole pile, you'll just get an extra ranking for the weak card which doesn't sound very appealing.

If we won't rank them together, I would argue that the bottom cards should get their own list. One could argue that having to buy 5 other cards is simply another form of cost like Potion and Debt are but I wouldn't really like that either as much.

You can use this same argument as to why each pile should be ranked separate.  Of course, if I rank Encampment, I do so knowing Plunder is on the bottom. If I rank Gladiator, I do so knowing Fortune is on the bottom. When ranking Fortune, I do so knowing Gladiator is on the top. Sure, I am taking into account what's on top and what's on bottom, but each time, I am still ranking a separate card. When I buy Gladiator in a game, I know I'm just getting Gladiator, but I have the potential to get Fortune.

I don't see why. I feel your point could support the argument that you can rank them together aswell. I assume our disagreement stems from the fact that we value the availability differently?
Logged
Join the Dominion League!

There is no bad shuffle that can not be surmounted by scorn.

Deadlock39

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1722
  • Respect: +1757
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #76 on: June 20, 2016, 01:45:59 pm »
+1

Just a random thought.

It would probably become more feasible to rank the entire set of cards if you were able to give 1-10 rankings first, and then only did the direct comparisons within each group.

Qvist

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2400
  • Shuffle iT Username: Qvist
  • Respect: +4085
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #77 on: June 20, 2016, 01:52:51 pm »
+2

Just a random thought.

It would probably become more feasible to rank the entire set of cards if you were able to give 1-10 rankings first, and then only did the direct comparisons within each group.

Also it gives the option to rate the cards from like 1 to 10 and then use the vote method to finer rank the cards within the same rating. That means less comparisms should be made to get a full ranked list.

Deadlock39

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1722
  • Respect: +1757
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #78 on: June 20, 2016, 02:08:11 pm »
+1

Just a random thought.

It would probably become more feasible to rank the entire set of cards if you were able to give 1-10 rankings first, and then only did the direct comparisons within each group.

Also it gives the option to rate the cards from like 1 to 10 and then use the vote method to finer rank the cards within the same rating. That means less comparisms should be made to get a full ranked list.

Another random thought...

I could read better. ;)

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #79 on: June 20, 2016, 02:18:03 pm »
+2

Ranking split piles as one entry gives less information than ranking them separately. Consider two pairs A/B and C/D. Suppose AB is ranked 4th and CD is ranked 5th.  Is A stronger than C? Is B stronger than D? Is AB ranked 4 because A is really strong on its own, or because B is strong enough that it's worth it to tear through the weak A cards on top?

If instead you have A ranked 42nd in its tier and B ranked 2nd in its tier, you start to see a clearer picture. B is strong and needs to be considered, but maybe it won't become available since A is weak.  Or if you see C is ranked 5th in its tier and D is ranked 50th, then you understand that C is powerful and D is probably a non-factor once it's uncovered.

When ranking the top card, you can keep in mind that there are only 5 copies and then something else underneath. When ranking bottom cards, you can keep in mind that whatever was on top was available in the kingdom. For example, Rocks should rank higher than just it's text would suggest because you know that Catapult is around for synergy. But you can certainly give each half of a split pile a different ranking, because they are different cards. You can gain Fortune without ever gaining a Gladiator.

Note that the rankings have already done this without issue: Looters and Ruins are ranked separately without problem.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25671
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #80 on: June 20, 2016, 02:21:45 pm »
+6

When you buy Settlers, you know that Bustling Village is under it; that may be part of your plan or not, but it's there, adding value to Settlers.

When you buy Bustling Village, you know how many copies of Settlers you got; sometimes it's zero. You still might buy it.

So, to me it only makes sense to evaluate them as separate cards, separate entries. Each can take into account the other, but you full-on have the option of only getting one of them (even the bottom one, it just takes help).
Logged

funkdoc

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 472
  • Respect: +414
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #81 on: June 20, 2016, 03:17:56 pm »
0

count me in as a vote for tier lists (nice to see somebody else use "S tier", haha) and counting potion as +$2 for cost purposes

i strongly disagree with making potion +$3 because that doesn't reflect how likely you are to buy a familiar on the 2nd shuffle.  +$2 is a fairly accurate representation of that.

also this would mean the $4 group finally gets a legit S-tier card with scrying pool, and that was the only group that never truly had one.  in the $2 group i would have vineyard 4th after chapel & the travelers.  interesting to think about it this way...

Beyond Awesome

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2941
  • Shuffle iT Username: Beyond Awesome
  • Respect: +2466
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #82 on: June 20, 2016, 03:30:06 pm »
+5

Thing is, you can't open Familiar. You can open a $4-cost
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #83 on: June 20, 2016, 03:52:18 pm »
+2

If you had to create a one-size-fits-all converted $ cost for Potion cards, I think adding +$3 is the most sensible option. It creates reasonable costs for all Potion-cost cards except Scrying Pool, but that's because Scrying Pool is already severely undercosted with its Potion cost.
Logged

Seprix

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5607
  • Respect: +3676
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #84 on: June 20, 2016, 04:10:16 pm »
+1

I'm for doing Tier Lists, a la Smash Bros or Pokemon. :p
Logged
DM me for ideas on a new article, either here or on Discord (I check Discord way more often)

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #85 on: June 20, 2016, 04:26:31 pm »
+1

I'm for doing Tier Lists, a la Smash Bros or Pokemon. :p

I am against doing anything the way Smogon does it.  :P

But for reals, tier lists would be fine for Dominion if that's what people really want to do. As long they won't impact the way boards are randomized, it seems OK.
Logged

Chris is me

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2745
  • Shuffle iT Username: Chris is me
  • What do you want me to say?
  • Respect: +3457
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #86 on: June 20, 2016, 04:31:12 pm »
+1

I'm for doing Tier Lists, a la Smash Bros or Pokemon. :p

I am against doing anything the way Smogon does it.  :P

Smogon's tiers are entirely usage based, excluding banned Pokemon. Since nothing is banned here, it would just be a list of cards sorted by gain rate, I guess. That would be pretty boring.
Logged
Twitch channel: http://www.twitch.tv/chrisisme2791

bug me on discord

pm me if you wanna do stuff for the blog

they/them

werothegreat

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8172
  • Shuffle iT Username: werothegreat
  • Let me tell you a secret...
  • Respect: +9625
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #87 on: June 20, 2016, 07:37:40 pm »
+1

Here's the thing - you're going to rate the Castles as a single pile all together, right?  It would be silly to rank them all individually. But the same logic you're using on Split piles can be used on them.  They all have different costs, you don't need to buy one to get another one, and there are even multiples of some of them with more than 2 players! While we're at it, why don't we rank all of the Knights individually as well, putting Sir Martin on the $4 list for good measure?
Logged
Contrary to popular belief, I do not run the wiki all on my own.  There are plenty of other people who are actively editing.  Go bother them!

Check out this fantasy epic adventure novel I wrote, the Broken Globe!  http://www.amazon.com/Broken-Globe-Tyr-Chronicles-Book-ebook/dp/B00LR1SZAS/

Seprix

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5607
  • Respect: +3676
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #88 on: June 20, 2016, 07:44:41 pm »
+2

Here's the thing - you're going to rate the Castles as a single pile all together, right?  It would be silly to rank them all individually. But the same logic you're using on Split piles can be used on them.  They all have different costs, you don't need to buy one to get another one, and there are even multiples of some of them with more than 2 players! While we're at it, why don't we rank all of the Knights individually as well, putting Sir Martin on the $4 list for good measure?

Not everything has to be consistent. We can rate the Knights together because they all do the same attack, with different little bonuses. Castles is just an alt VP, to consider one you must consider them all. However, with split piles, you can have one, but not the other, and have it potentially be a viable strategy.
Logged
DM me for ideas on a new article, either here or on Discord (I check Discord way more often)

Co0kieL0rd

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 743
  • Respect: +863
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #89 on: June 20, 2016, 07:48:00 pm »
+2

Here's the thing - you're going to rate the Castles as a single pile all together, right?  It would be silly to rank them all individually. But the same logic you're using on Split piles can be used on them.  They all have different costs, you don't need to buy one to get another one, and there are even multiples of some of them with more than 2 players! While we're at it, why don't we rank all of the Knights individually as well, putting Sir Martin on the $4 list for good measure?

We also really need a list for all the $0-cost cards, and why the heck doesn't Poor House get its own list? Also for years people have been talking about cards passing 'the Silver test', so why isn't Silver in the $3-list? And why don't we rank the other basic Supply cards for that matter?
Logged
Check out my fan cards!
Dominion: Seasons - a small set Asper and I made that revolves around a unique and original mechanic
Roots and Renewal - this set is about interacting with the Supply and manipulating your opening turns
Flash cards - trying out a new concept

Beyond Awesome

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2941
  • Shuffle iT Username: Beyond Awesome
  • Respect: +2466
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #90 on: June 20, 2016, 07:54:03 pm »
+2

Here's the thing - you're going to rate the Castles as a single pile all together, right?  It would be silly to rank them all individually. But the same logic you're using on Split piles can be used on them.  They all have different costs, you don't need to buy one to get another one, and there are even multiples of some of them with more than 2 players! While we're at it, why don't we rank all of the Knights individually as well, putting Sir Martin on the $4 list for good measure?

Knights and Castles both have the same type. All Knights have the same unifying attack. And, Castles are all VP cards that affect each other.

Plunder is not like Encapment. Gladiator is not like Fortune. And, I could go own.
Logged

markusin

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3846
  • Shuffle iT Username: markusin
  • I also switched from Starcraft
  • Respect: +2437
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #91 on: June 20, 2016, 07:59:01 pm »
0

Here's the thing - you're going to rate the Castles as a single pile all together, right?  It would be silly to rank them all individually. But the same logic you're using on Split piles can be used on them.  They all have different costs, you don't need to buy one to get another one, and there are even multiples of some of them with more than 2 players! While we're at it, why don't we rank all of the Knights individually as well, putting Sir Martin on the $4 list for good measure?

I've had difficulty forming an opinion here. I started writing a response, and now I think I have a side here.

Split piles? Well...I feel that the existence of the bottom cards is a feature of the top cards. You rate Catapult knowing you can get Rocks. You rate Encampment knowing you can save them with Plunder. Similar story with Patrician and Gladiator (remember you gain Gold with Fortune for each Gladiator you have in play, and you can help reveal Fortune with Gladiator's on play).

So, I personally prefer the strength of the bottom card adding to the overall value of the top card and have then rated together as one card pile. Sure, you can get the bottom cards without getting the top cards, but you can see that as a sort of penalty your opponent gets for emptying the top card and factor that into the rating of the top card.

You may never get to the bottom cards in a game, but like sometimes you never get to play an activated City. The potential to activate City is still relevant to the strength of City.

You can rate the two cards in the split pile separately if you really want, but I'm left wondering if you really gain much from doing that. I think a unified ranking gives a better sense of how the pile will impact the game.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25671
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #92 on: June 20, 2016, 08:38:05 pm »
+2

Here's the thing - you're going to rate the Castles as a single pile all together, right?  It would be silly to rank them all individually. But the same logic you're using on Split piles can be used on them.  They all have different costs, you don't need to buy one to get another one, and there are even multiples of some of them with more than 2 players! While we're at it, why don't we rank all of the Knights individually as well, putting Sir Martin on the $4 list for good measure?
It would be sensible and fine to rank the Castles and Knights individually; here the idea would be, when you have $5, what's a good thing to buy? Small Castle? Dame Molly? Market? Herald with $1 overpay? We can continue on to, Ironmonger, even though it costs $4?

The problem with it is just one of effort expended ranking things, vs. reward produced looking at the results. Ranking the $5's is already giving up some on "what can I get with $5" in favor of "let's get this done with already."
Logged

trivialknot

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 757
  • Respect: +1171
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #93 on: June 20, 2016, 08:49:16 pm »
+2

The most compelling argument for ranking split piles separately is that people have already done it that way in the threads discussing impressions and power predictions, without even thinking about it.  Apparently most people find that to be intuitive.

Of course, most people in those threads are also mixing cards of different costs, and also using ratings rather than rankings.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #94 on: June 20, 2016, 09:01:35 pm »
+2

Here's the thing - you're going to rate the Castles as a single pile all together, right?  It would be silly to rank them all individually. But the same logic you're using on Split piles can be used on them.  They all have different costs, you don't need to buy one to get another one, and there are even multiples of some of them with more than 2 players! While we're at it, why don't we rank all of the Knights individually as well, putting Sir Martin on the $4 list for good measure?

Why would it be silly to rank all the castles individually?  I don't even know which price list they should go on, because it seems silly to put them on any such list when only 1-2 cards of the pile is at that price point.  It makes more sense to me to give Castles their own list, where the ranking is about which specific Castles are most significant on any given board.  Maybe stick Castles as a whole onto a regular list as well, but again -- at what cost??

Your last line about ranking the Knights is funny because we have in fact ranked all of the knights individually.

You can rate the two cards in the split pile separately if you really want, but I'm left wondering if you really gain much from doing that. I think a unified ranking gives a better sense of how the pile will impact the game.

I think we would gain a lot from ranking them separately, and stand to lose a lot if we only rank them together:

Ranking split piles as one entry gives less information than ranking them separately. Consider two pairs A/B and C/D. Suppose AB is ranked 4th and CD is ranked 5th.  Is A stronger than C? Is B stronger than D? Is AB ranked 4 because A is really strong on its own, or because B is strong enough that it's worth it to tear through the weak A cards on top?

If instead you have A ranked 42nd in its tier and B ranked 2nd in its tier, you start to see a clearer picture. B is strong and needs to be considered, but maybe it won't become available since A is weak.  Or if you see C is ranked 5th in its tier and D is ranked 50th, then you understand that C is powerful and D is probably a non-factor once it's uncovered.
Logged

markusin

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3846
  • Shuffle iT Username: markusin
  • I also switched from Starcraft
  • Respect: +2437
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #95 on: June 20, 2016, 09:43:52 pm »
0


I think we would gain a lot from ranking them separately, and stand to lose a lot if we only rank them together:

Ranking split piles as one entry gives less information than ranking them separately. Consider two pairs A/B and C/D. Suppose AB is ranked 4th and CD is ranked 5th.  Is A stronger than C? Is B stronger than D? Is AB ranked 4 because A is really strong on its own, or because B is strong enough that it's worth it to tear through the weak A cards on top?

If instead you have A ranked 42nd in its tier and B ranked 2nd in its tier, you start to see a clearer picture. B is strong and needs to be considered, but maybe it won't become available since A is weak.  Or if you see C is ranked 5th in its tier and D is ranked 50th, then you understand that C is powerful and D is probably a non-factor once it's uncovered.

I don't see it this way. If I rank B 2nd in its tier it would be because its that good despite having to get through the trashy A. Likewise, giving you and your opponents access to the bottom card factors into the overall worth of gaining A over other cards.

Like, the $5 cost card you get from Banquet can be really good, but the Coppers might really suck. I can rate the $5 cost card as being really good, and the Coppers as being really bad. But I'm interested in ranking Banquet itself.

Edit: your description really suggests that we need both an individual ranking for the cards and a combined ranking.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2016, 09:45:11 pm by markusin »
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #96 on: June 20, 2016, 10:52:10 pm »
+1


I think we would gain a lot from ranking them separately, and stand to lose a lot if we only rank them together:

Ranking split piles as one entry gives less information than ranking them separately. Consider two pairs A/B and C/D. Suppose AB is ranked 4th and CD is ranked 5th.  Is A stronger than C? Is B stronger than D? Is AB ranked 4 because A is really strong on its own, or because B is strong enough that it's worth it to tear through the weak A cards on top?

If instead you have A ranked 42nd in its tier and B ranked 2nd in its tier, you start to see a clearer picture. B is strong and needs to be considered, but maybe it won't become available since A is weak.  Or if you see C is ranked 5th in its tier and D is ranked 50th, then you understand that C is powerful and D is probably a non-factor once it's uncovered.

I don't see it this way. If I rank B 2nd in its tier it would be because its that good despite having to get through the trashy A. Likewise, giving you and your opponents access to the bottom card factors into the overall worth of gaining A over other cards.

Like, the $5 cost card you get from Banquet can be really good, but the Coppers might really suck. I can rate the $5 cost card as being really good, and the Coppers as being really bad. But I'm interested in ranking Banquet itself.

Edit: your description really suggests that we need both an individual ranking for the cards and a combined ranking.

Sure, that explanation for ranking B 2nd makes sense too.  The point is that this consideration is lost in a combined ranking.

I don't think a combined ranking is necessary because you can just figure it out by looking at the two individual rankings.
Logged

AJD

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3292
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +4434
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #97 on: June 21, 2016, 12:08:17 am »
+5

Maybe stick Castles as a whole onto a regular list as well, but again -- at what cost??

Logged

Accatitippi

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1153
  • Shuffle iT Username: Accatitippi
  • Silver is underraided
  • Respect: +1795
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #98 on: June 21, 2016, 04:21:45 am »
0

Thing is, you can't open Familiar. You can open a $4-cost

That's why I proposed dumping all the 2P and 3P cards with the 5-costs, since you can't often open with a 5er either. LastFootnote's suggestion of treating Potion as +3$ also works and it is less arbitrary, but it raises Vineyards and Transmute to the 3$s, while I feel they fit better in the 0-2$ group.

Or we could dump everything in the 6$+ group, rename it "cards not costing less than 6$" and be technically correct.
Logged

Accatitippi

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1153
  • Shuffle iT Username: Accatitippi
  • Silver is underraided
  • Respect: +1795
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #99 on: June 21, 2016, 04:35:38 am »
+1

Here's the thing - you're going to rate the Castles as a single pile all together, right?  It would be silly to rank them all individually. But the same logic you're using on Split piles can be used on them.  They all have different costs, you don't need to buy one to get another one, and there are even multiples of some of them with more than 2 players! While we're at it, why don't we rank all of the Knights individually as well, putting Sir Martin on the $4 list for good measure?

Why would it be silly to rank all the castles individually?  I don't even know which price list they should go on, because it seems silly to put them on any such list when only 1-2 cards of the pile is at that price point.  It makes more sense to me to give Castles their own list, where the ranking is about which specific Castles are most significant on any given board.  Maybe stick Castles as a whole onto a regular list as well, but again -- at what cost??

Your last line about ranking the Knights is funny because we have in fact ranked all of the knights individually.



That ranking only pits knights against each other, while I think the topic here is about including the Knights in the 5$ and 4$ groups.
(I would be in favor of that, the only problem being that it might not be worth the hassle)
Also Ruins in the 0-2$ groups could be fun.
And each Castle in their own group would be allright, I think. Most of them would end up in the same group, but having the three cheap Castles in their proper price group would enable us to answer some questions like how often we'd pass on a Swindler to get that Humble castle, how often we are happy to give up a 5$ buy to get Small castle, and how bad we think Crumbling castle is.

So yeah, I'd take a more literal approach to costs. If it's in the supply and has a cost, rank it with its peers.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5  All
 

Page created in 0.075 seconds with 24 queries.