Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]  All

Author Topic: Make an attack that dishes out Debt  (Read 22188 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

trivialknot

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 748
  • Respect: +1161
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #100 on: July 20, 2016, 05:34:57 pm »
0

I don't know what's going on in this thread, but the idea of exclusion testing intrigues me.  There are two ways to think about the strength of a card:

1. If one player has access to the card, and the other doesn't, how many more games do they win?
2. If all players have access to the card, how much does it impact the game?

For most cards, both kinds of strength are the same.  However, Fool's Gold is an example that has more type 1 strength than type 2 strength.  If you're the only person with access to the Fool's Gold, then you can always get 10 of them.  However, if all players have access, they can foil each other, and it might not be very good for anyone.

You can also consider attacks that are good defenses against themselves.  This is kind of a subtle point, but Young Witch sifts through cards, which mitigates the slogginess of having a cheap curser.  Or Pirate Ship, which provides non-Treasure payoff in games where you may need it.  These reduce the impact that a card has on the game, which is important if the impact would have been very negative.  (Of course, the impact isn't always negative.)

For this reason, I think it's important to give a debt attack a payoff bonus (as opposed to, say, drawing cards).
Logged

Destry

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 77
  • Respect: +75
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #101 on: July 20, 2016, 06:46:09 pm »
+3

Speaking from experience, tristan is a troll and should not be fed.

Seconded. You don't have to get tristan to agree with you in order for the rest of us to see that you're in the right, Destry. tristan is just a real horatio83 when you come right down to it.

But, but, but I just carefully crafted a response that will surely sweep him away with the power of my logic. That will work, won't it?

I cannot in good conscience leave a fellow internet denizen in darkness and error. It is my sacred duty to bring him to the light. Someone is wrong on the internet, and I must help them.


[How about engaging with my actual argument?  ::)

But you don't make an actual argument about how ordinary playtesting is superior to exclusion testing. You just stomp your metaphoric feet and claim more ordinary playtesting is sufficient and exclusion testing is dubious at best.

Let me give you an example of how ordinary playtesting may not give you the results you're looking for. Way back when, Donald X introduced a new card - Treasure Map - that gave you 3 Gold in your discard if you matched two of them. Ho ho ho - that's crazy! 3 Gold! Everybody bought them during those first games they appeared, and would overbuy them to prevent others from getting two to match. And the person who bought them always won - since everyone was basing their strategy on matching Treasure Maps. I vividly remember one demoralizing game where the Treasure Maps ran out before I could get a second one. Good thing Donald X nerfed that overpowered card!

Except - spoiler! - that's not the version that ended up in Seaside. When players followed different strategies -  were excluded from buying Treasure Map - did it become obvious TM wasn't overpowered. Actually, TM was underpowered and needed to be beefed up now gives 4 Gold on the top of your deck.

So, you see, if you just do ordinary testing, you may not get much useful information. And if time and resources are limited - Donald X doesn't have hundreds of playtesters on his payroll - focused testing, including exclusion testing as described previously, are crucial.


I hope this helps.
Logged

Doom_Shark

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 429
  • Shuffle iT Username: Doom_Shark
  • Respect: +395
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #102 on: July 20, 2016, 07:13:43 pm »
0

And FYI, argument from authority isn't fallacious unless the authority is unreliable or unqualified for the argument being made. 
You really deny enlightenment principles like 'arguments should be analyzed independently of who made them'? No wonder these discussions are so pointless, you are quite literally a man from the Middle Ages.

If calling you out on basically denying the enlightenment and modernity makes me the bad guy, makes everybody call me a troll and guess what not, so be it.
Not that I disagree with your argument here, but there you go selectively quoting again. That is bad discussion practice, as it removes the quote from context. It makes you look more credible when your argument is made with the quote in context. If you are responding to a specific part of the quote, bold it, but don't take it out of context. I believe that is largely why others are calling you a troll. I'm not trying to make you feel bad, I am genuinely trying to help.

However, please note that I am on the pro exclusion testing side of the argument. It is this qoute only that I agree with so far.
Logged
"I swear to drunk I'm not officer, God."
Generation 33 The first time you see this, copy it, add 1 to the generation number, and add it to your signature. (On any forum) Social experiment.

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9184
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #103 on: July 21, 2016, 03:41:28 pm »
0

And FYI, argument from authority isn't fallacious unless the authority is unreliable or unqualified for the argument being made. 
You really deny enlightenment principles like 'arguments should be analyzed independently of who made them'? No wonder these discussions are so pointless, you are quite literally a man from the Middle Ages.

If calling you out on basically denying the enlightenment and modernity makes me the bad guy, makes everybody call me a troll and guess what not, so be it.
Not that I disagree with your argument here, but there you go selectively quoting again. That is bad discussion practice, as it removes the quote from context. It makes you look more credible when your argument is made with the quote in context. If you are responding to a specific part of the quote, bold it, but don't take it out of context. I believe that is largely why others are calling you a troll. I'm not trying to make you feel bad, I am genuinely trying to help.

However, please note that I am on the pro exclusion testing side of the argument. It is this qoute only that I agree with so far.

I was going to leave tristan to his ignorance because I'm pretty sure I've explained argument from authority to him before and he willfully learned nothing.  But it's a new day, and since you are not a troll and probably able to listen to reason, here:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Quote
An argument from authority refers to two kinds of logical arguments:

1. A logically valid argument from authority grounds a claim in the beliefs of one or more authoritative source(s), whose opinions are likely to be true on the relevant issue. Notably, this is a Bayesian statement -- it is likely to be true, rather than necessarily true. As such, an argument from authority can only strongly suggest what is true -- not prove it.

2. A logically fallacious argument from authority grounds a claim in the beliefs of a source that is not authoritative. Sources could be non-authoritative because of their personal bias, their disagreement with consensus on the issue, their non-expertise in the relevant issue, or a number of other issues. (Often, this is called an appeal to authority, rather than argument from authority.)

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#Explanation

Quote
In order to be fallacious, the argument must appeal to the authority because of their qualification in an irrelevant field and should be irrelevant to the argument at hand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Quote
Historically, opinion on the appeal to authority has been divided - it has been held to be a valid argument about as often as it has been considered an outright fallacy.

John Locke, in his 1690 Essay Concerning Human Understanding, was the first to identify argumentum ad verecundiam as a specific category of argument. Although he did not call this type of argument a fallacy, he did note that it can be misused by taking advantage of the "respect" and "submission" of the reader or listener to persuade them to accept the conclusion. Over time, logic textbooks started to adopt and change Locke's original terminology to refer more specifically to fallacious uses of the argument from authority. By the mid-twentieth century, it was common for logic textbooks to refer to the "Fallacy of appealing to authority," even while noting that "this method of argument is not always strictly fallacious."

In the Western rationalistic tradition and in early modern philosophy, appealing to authority was generally considered a logical fallacy.

More recently, logic textbooks have shifted to a less blanket approach to these arguments, now often referring to the fallacy as the "Argument from Unqualified Authority" or the "Argument from Unreliable Authority".

So, is there a term for fallacious accusations of logical fallacies, or for being unreasonable about Reason itself?  Even then I wouldn't have minded so much, but tristan was literally using the same type of argument that he was condemning while he was condemning it.  Enlightenment indeed.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9405
  • Respect: +10408
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #104 on: July 21, 2016, 04:00:30 pm »
+2

So, is there a term for fallacious accusations of logical fallacies,

Yes! The fallacy fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9184
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #105 on: July 21, 2016, 04:50:59 pm »
0

So, is there a term for fallacious accusations of logical fallacies,

Yes! The fallacy fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

I meant calling something a fallacy when it isn't, but this is close.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9405
  • Respect: +10408
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #106 on: July 21, 2016, 05:08:46 pm »
0

So, is there a term for fallacious accusations of logical fallacies,

Yes! The fallacy fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

I meant calling something a fallacy when it isn't, but this is close.

Yeah, it's not exactly the same. Though until I read that article, I had thought that the "fallacy fallacy" referred to simply an overuse of accusations of fallacies as your argument; whether those accusations were correct or not.
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5330
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #107 on: July 21, 2016, 05:24:47 pm »
0

So, is there a term for fallacious accusations of logical fallacies,

Yes! The fallacy fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

I meant calling something a fallacy when it isn't, but this is close.

Yeah, it's not exactly the same. Though until I read that article, I had thought that the "fallacy fallacy" referred to simply an overuse of accusations of fallacies as your argument; whether those accusations were correct or not.

So, shortly put, it's the claim that a false premise implied a false conclusion.
Logged

Doom_Shark

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 429
  • Shuffle iT Username: Doom_Shark
  • Respect: +395
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #108 on: July 21, 2016, 07:08:43 pm »
0

Uhhh...just forget I said anything about this argument at all. Let's go back to analyzing possible debt attacks...or how about debt giving reactions? Maybe something like:
Quote
cardname some reasonable cost
Action-reaction
Some simple action.
                                               
When you trash a card, you may discard this. If you do, each opponent takes <> equal to half the trashed card's cost in coin rounded down.
Ninjaedit: clarity
« Last Edit: July 21, 2016, 07:09:56 pm by Doom_Shark »
Logged
"I swear to drunk I'm not officer, God."
Generation 33 The first time you see this, copy it, add 1 to the generation number, and add it to your signature. (On any forum) Social experiment.

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #109 on: July 22, 2016, 04:51:34 am »
0

You can also consider attacks that are good defenses against themselves.  This is kind of a subtle point, but Young Witch sifts through cards, which mitigates the slogginess of having a cheap curser.  Or Pirate Ship, which provides non-Treasure payoff in games where you may need it.  These reduce the impact that a card has on the game, which is important if the impact would have been very negative.  (Of course, the impact isn't always negative.)
This is a very good point. I'd like to add that a lot of attacks defend against themselves. For example Cursers (or junkers in general) don't just hurt your opponent but also make you get less Curses. So even if you don't want a junker in a particular game you might have to buy one simply because your opponent bought one.


Quote
For this reason, I think it's important to give a debt attack a payoff bonus (as opposed to, say, drawing cards).
This is partially why Debt Peonage gives you Coin tokens.
Logged

461.weavile

  • Salvager
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 62
  • Respect: +51
    • View Profile
    • Itemfinder RPG
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #110 on: July 29, 2016, 10:27:01 pm »
0

Quote
cardname some reasonable cost
Action-reaction
Some simple action.
                                               
When you trash a card, you may discard this. If you do, each other player takes <> equal to half the trashed card's cost in coins rounded down.

Any inkling of what might go on the top? Remodeler that deals with debt costs? I prefer when the Reactions are guaranteed to have an effect in the kingdom, but maybe the Remodeler isn't the simplest effect...

I seem to have misplaced my idea for a Debt Attack. Let's see where it could've gone.... Ah yes:

Quote
At the start of your next turn, choose a player (including yourself). +(1) per < > that player has.
----
While this is in play, when a Treasure card is discarded from play, its owner takes <1>.

Please ignore the potential discrepancy between revealing Moat and effects that don't occur on-play; I'm pretty sure Moat still operates as intended.
Logged
Warlords and Wizards is my favorite expansion.

Doom_Shark

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 429
  • Shuffle iT Username: Doom_Shark
  • Respect: +395
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #111 on: July 30, 2016, 05:12:07 pm »
0

I just realized that there is kind of already a way to have an attack dush out debt: tax+junkers
Logged
"I swear to drunk I'm not officer, God."
Generation 33 The first time you see this, copy it, add 1 to the generation number, and add it to your signature. (On any forum) Social experiment.

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5330
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #112 on: July 30, 2016, 06:06:29 pm »
0

I just realized that there is kind of already a way to have an attack dush out debt: tax+junkers
Except that Tax, like Swamp Hag and Haunted Woods, triggers on buy for precisely that reason.
Logged

Doom_Shark

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 429
  • Shuffle iT Username: Doom_Shark
  • Respect: +395
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #113 on: July 30, 2016, 08:11:16 pm »
+2

Oh yeah...I noticed that with other cards, being especially flavorful for smugglers, but missed that interaction.
Logged
"I swear to drunk I'm not officer, God."
Generation 33 The first time you see this, copy it, add 1 to the generation number, and add it to your signature. (On any forum) Social experiment.

madeofghosts

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 58
  • Respect: +98
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #114 on: August 18, 2016, 07:54:47 am »
0

Would this work?

[some minor benefit that isn't +$]
You may take a debt token; if you do, so does everyone else.

So you'd use it if you weren't going to spend all your money that turn anyway, or if you're relying on gaining instead of buying. And it's stackable but only if you're ok with it stacking against you too. No idea what a suitable cost would be. It doesn't seem all that strong.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5330
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #115 on: August 18, 2016, 08:34:08 am »
0

I tested this as an attack:

Action-Attack-Duration, $4
Until the start of your next turn, when another player buys a card, they take <1>.
At the start of your next turn: +$2

It was really, really weak. Now i'll try it as:

Action-Attack-Duration, $3
Until the start of your next turn, when another player buys a card, they take <1>.
Now and at the start of your next turn: +$1, +1Buy
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]  All
 

Page created in 0.086 seconds with 22 queries.