Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11  All

Author Topic: Overpay cards and the best cards lists  (Read 76340 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Robz888

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2644
  • Shuffle iT Username: Robz888
  • Respect: +3388
    • View Profile
Re: Overpay cards and the best cards lists
« Reply #200 on: June 21, 2013, 06:16:28 pm »
0

I mean, look, I agree that the most accurate and effective way to rank Masterpiece would be to put it on a list of all 300 or however many Dominion cards. It's just going to be fairly difficult to actually figure out where it should fit in there. And it's going to be even harder for other cards.
Logged
I have been forced to accept that lackluster play is a town tell for you.

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Overpay cards and the best cards lists
« Reply #201 on: June 21, 2013, 06:18:46 pm »
0

Our ranking device is by definition interpretive and vague.  Some people rank cards higher because they are absolutely amazing 10% of the time even though they are terrible otherwise.  Some people rank cards higher if they are always reliable, even if never amazing.  Most people probably weigh a bit of both, to varying degrees.

The overpay cards will also add in these elements no matter where you slot them.  But as you yourself say this:

Quote
But it ends up being kind of hard to compare the relative goodness of IGG vs. the relative goodness of, say Squire, because you also have to say, well IGG is so much harder to buy than Squire, because of cost.

Your difficulty there is the same you would face when ranking a card like Masterpiece, because base Masterpiece is crap and $6 Masterpiece is awesome.   

"It ends up being kind of hard to compare the relative goodness of $6 Masterpiece vs. the relative goodness of, say Loan, because you also have to say, well $6 Masterpiece is so much harder to buy than Loan, because of cost."

And then repeat that for $5 and $4 Masterpiece as well.

And I note that in that quote, you just say "IGG" instead of my made-up LGG.  You recognized that LGG would not really get purchased at $2; it is effectively $5 IGG, technical cost be damned.  Masterpiece is like that too.  It would not really get purchased at $3, it is effectively $5 or $6 Masterpiece, technical cost be damned.
Logged

sudgy

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3431
  • Shuffle iT Username: sudgy
  • It's pronounced "SOO-jee"
  • Respect: +2706
    • View Profile
Re: Overpay cards and the best cards lists
« Reply #202 on: June 21, 2013, 06:23:41 pm »
0

So for those who are concerned with which price is technically correct, why isn't Possession ranked alongside its fellow $6+ cards?

Huh?  I took 6+ to mean it has a cost that is an element of (x,0) for x>=6, where (x,y) is the (coin,potion) cost of a card.  The $X card lists only rank cards with costs of the form (X,0).  Cards of costs (x,y) for nonzero y are on their own list, right?

Ha, in my dominion program the costs are arrays where it's [coin, potion]...
Logged
If you're wondering what my avatar is, watch this.

Check out my logic puzzle blog!

   Quote from: sudgy on June 31, 2011, 11:47:46 pm

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Overpay cards and the best cards lists
« Reply #203 on: June 21, 2013, 06:26:43 pm »
0

The problem is LGG is just an illogical card. If there were lots of cards like LGG, then yes, cost would be mostly meaningless for setting baseline rankings.

There are at least four cards like LGG -- the four overpay cards.  That was the whole point of the illustration.  Peddler might count too, as a fifth.

If it helps, you could say that my suggestion is to rank cards by functional cost rather than technical cost.

However, the argument can probably be made that some $2 cards have an effective cost of $3, given that they're more often bought when you actually have $3 in your hand and not $2 (like Chapel).

No, that's only because you draw $3 more commonly than you draw $2.  The functional cost is not merely the cost at which a card is most commonly bought.  It is more like the minimum cost in order to get the full function of the card.  For Chapel, that's still $2.  For Masterpiece, it is certainly above $3 because the full function of the card is "gain a bunch of Silver" and that just doesn't happen at $3.  It gets a bit tough because that function keeps getting better the more you overpay, which is why it is at THAT point a "most common" cost should be considered, and then you can consider all the other costs from that point of reference.
Logged

Witherweaver

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6476
  • Shuffle iT Username: Witherweaver
  • Respect: +7861
    • View Profile
Re: Overpay cards and the best cards lists
« Reply #204 on: June 21, 2013, 06:31:39 pm »
0

The problem is LGG is just an illogical card. If there were lots of cards like LGG, then yes, cost would be mostly meaningless for setting baseline rankings.

There are at least four cards like LGG -- the four overpay cards.  That was the whole point of the illustration.  Peddler might count too, as a fifth.

If it helps, you could say that my suggestion is to rank cards by functional cost rather than technical cost.

However, the argument can probably be made that some $2 cards have an effective cost of $3, given that they're more often bought when you actually have $3 in your hand and not $2 (like Chapel).

No, that's only because you draw $3 more commonly than you draw $2.  The functional cost is not merely the cost at which a card is most commonly bought.  It is more like the minimum cost in order to get the full function of the card.  For Chapel, that's still $2.  For Masterpiece, it is certainly above $3 because the full function of the card is "gain a bunch of Silver" and that just doesn't happen at $3.  It gets a bit tough because that function keeps getting better the more you overpay, which is why it is at THAT point a "most common" cost should be considered, and then you can consider all the other costs from that point of reference.

Huh?  The minimum cost in order to get the full function of the card?  I think you're going to have a really hard time trying to evaluate any of the overpay cards that way.  Especially since it sounds eerily like trying to find the minimum element of an unbounded set.  It seems a lot easier to evaluate it at $3 than to argue whether $4, $5, or $6 is the "functional cost".
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Overpay cards and the best cards lists
« Reply #205 on: June 21, 2013, 06:45:59 pm »
0

The only real counterargument I see is, "Stonemason costs $2 according to the little number in the corner, therefore it should be with other $2 cards".  That's just stubborn.

It's also technically correct :P   Because "cost" is defined in the rulebook.  It has a precise meaning in the mechanics of the game.  You simply can't argue that Stonemason does not cost $2, because it does.  You'd have to rewrite the card, or the rules, to change that.  You can argue that the cost of a card isn't the best way to rank them.  You can also argue through an "effective cost," but that's different than the cost.

Sure thing.  But I believe effective cost is what matters most.  I mean, you could take it to extremes:

Quote
Switch - Action - $2
-----------------------------------
+2 Cards
Each other player gains a Curse card.
-----------------------------------
During your Buy phase, this costs $5.

This is Witch with a Peddler spin on it.  Switch technically costs $2.  But really, come on, it costs $5.  There are a few weird cases (TfB and Blackmarket to name a couple) but, generally speaking, it is a $5 card.

And I will touch on Robz' comments here as well.  For me, the "essence of cost" is the effective cost; it's what people actually pay for a card.  It includes changes caused by the functions of the card.  This is the cost that matters.  The "technical cost" or "nominal cost" is what is written on the card, and that's what TfBs and such care about.  But generally speaking, it is less important.

Switch is technically $2.  But it is essentially and effectively $5.  It should be compared with other $5s, not $2s.

Likewise, I do think Peddler could be moved to the $2 list, but it is noteworthy that Peddler only fluctuates in cost.  The overpay cards fluctuate in cost AND power.
The only problem I have with this is that there isn't somewhere to stick these guys. Having their own list is possible, sure, but they don't fit anywhere else, and a 4 card list is pretty lame - I mean, the ruins list and Knights list are, well, reasonably pointless as is. So they don't fit well anywhere, effectively, which is why I say to drop in on the nominal cost. But again, not a big deal.

The only real counterargument I see is, "Stonemason costs $2 according to the little number in the corner, therefore it should be with other $2 cards".  That's just stubborn.

It's also technically correct :P   Because "cost" is defined in the rulebook.  It has a precise meaning in the mechanics of the game.  You simply can't argue that Stonemason does not cost $2, because it does.  You'd have to rewrite the card, or the rules, to change that.  You can argue that the cost of a card isn't the best way to rank them.  You can also argue through an "effective cost," but that's different than the cost.

Sure thing.  But I believe effective cost is what matters most.  I mean, you could take it to extremes:

Quote
Switch - Action - $2
-----------------------------------
+2 Cards
Each other player gains a Curse card.
-----------------------------------
During your Buy phase, this costs $5.

This is Witch with a Peddler spin on it.  Switch technically costs $2.  But really, come on, it costs $5.  There are a few weird cases (TfB and Blackmarket to name a couple) but, generally speaking, it is a $5 card.

And I will touch on Robz' comments here as well.  For me, the "essence of cost" is the effective cost; it's what people actually pay for a card.  It includes changes caused by the functions of the card.  This is the cost that matters.  The "technical cost" or "nominal cost" is what is written on the card, and that's what TfBs and such care about.  But generally speaking, it is less important.

Switch is technically $2.  But it is essentially and effectively $5.  It should be compared with other $5s, not $2s.

Likewise, I do think Peddler could be moved to the $2 list, but it is noteworthy that Peddler only fluctuates in cost.  The overpay cards fluctuate in cost AND power.

Switch should be on the $2 list. It would be, by far, the Best $2 Card. As such, it's heinously unbalanced and should never exist. Still, it's a $2 card.
Switch, if it's the only such card, would be a $2, I agree. I strongly disagree that it is by far the Best 2-cost card. I mean, is witch really better than chapel? I don't actually think so. Anyhow, if many cards had this issue, it would just be a reason to not use cost to group - similar to how if we try to list by functionality now, not everything fits nice. The overpay cards are bringing up this problem now.

So for those who are concerned with which price is technically correct, why isn't Possession ranked alongside its fellow $6+ cards?
This would be technically correct, but it isn't *required*. I wouldn't have a problem with it, though.

Our ranking device is by definition interpretive and vague.  Some people rank cards higher because they are absolutely amazing 10% of the time even though they are terrible otherwise.  Some people rank cards higher if they are always reliable, even if never amazing.  Most people probably weigh a bit of both, to varying degrees.

The overpay cards will also add in these elements no matter where you slot them.  But as you yourself say this:

Quote
But it ends up being kind of hard to compare the relative goodness of IGG vs. the relative goodness of, say Squire, because you also have to say, well IGG is so much harder to buy than Squire, because of cost.

Your difficulty there is the same you would face when ranking a card like Masterpiece, because base Masterpiece is crap and $6 Masterpiece is awesome.   

"It ends up being kind of hard to compare the relative goodness of $6 Masterpiece vs. the relative goodness of, say Loan, because you also have to say, well $6 Masterpiece is so much harder to buy than Loan, because of cost."

And then repeat that for $5 and $4 Masterpiece as well.

And I note that in that quote, you just say "IGG" instead of my made-up LGG.  You recognized that LGG would not really get purchased at $2; it is effectively $5 IGG, technical cost be damned.  Masterpiece is like that too.  It would not really get purchased at $3, it is effectively $5 or $6 Masterpiece, technical cost be damned.
You keep saying that it's hard to rank the overpays. Sure is. But this doesn't have an effect on the cost debate.
The problem is LGG is just an illogical card. If there were lots of cards like LGG, then yes, cost would be mostly meaningless for setting baseline rankings.

There are at least four cards like LGG -- the four overpay cards.  That was the whole point of the illustration.  Peddler might count too, as a fifth.
No, because LGG has ONE fixed alternate cost. The overpay cards have a large (possibly infinite) number of options. This changes things.

Quote
If it helps, you could say that my suggestion is to rank cards by functional cost rather than technical cost.

However, the argument can probably be made that some $2 cards have an effective cost of $3, given that they're more often bought when you actually have $3 in your hand and not $2 (like Chapel).

No, that's only because you draw $3 more commonly than you draw $2.  The functional cost is not merely the cost at which a card is most commonly bought.  It is more like the minimum cost in order to get the full function of the card.  For Chapel, that's still $2.  For Masterpiece, it is certainly above $3 because the full function of the card is "gain a bunch of Silver" and that just doesn't happen at $3.  It gets a bit tough because that function keeps getting better the more you overpay, which is why it is at THAT point a "most common" cost should be considered, and then you can consider all the other costs from that point of reference.
You *never* get the 'full function of the card' then though, for the overpay cards. Well, stonemason would be 10. But the rest are basically unbounded (Doctor is bounded by the money you can play in a turn, herald by the actions you can have in your deck, masterpiece by the size of the silver pile...)

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Overpay cards and the best cards lists
« Reply #206 on: June 21, 2013, 06:49:00 pm »
0

The problem is LGG is just an illogical card. If there were lots of cards like LGG, then yes, cost would be mostly meaningless for setting baseline rankings.

There are at least four cards like LGG -- the four overpay cards.  That was the whole point of the illustration.  Peddler might count too, as a fifth.

If it helps, you could say that my suggestion is to rank cards by functional cost rather than technical cost.

However, the argument can probably be made that some $2 cards have an effective cost of $3, given that they're more often bought when you actually have $3 in your hand and not $2 (like Chapel).

No, that's only because you draw $3 more commonly than you draw $2.  The functional cost is not merely the cost at which a card is most commonly bought.  It is more like the minimum cost in order to get the full function of the card.  For Chapel, that's still $2.  For Masterpiece, it is certainly above $3 because the full function of the card is "gain a bunch of Silver" and that just doesn't happen at $3.  It gets a bit tough because that function keeps getting better the more you overpay, which is why it is at THAT point a "most common" cost should be considered, and then you can consider all the other costs from that point of reference.

Huh?  The minimum cost in order to get the full function of the card?  I think you're going to have a really hard time trying to evaluate any of the overpay cards that way.  Especially since it sounds eerily like trying to find the minimum element of an unbounded set.  It seems a lot easier to evaluate it at $3 than to argue whether $4, $5, or $6 is the "functional cost".

Not at all... But whatever, forget about all that then.  It boils down to this:

- For most cards, functional/effective/essential cost (whatever you want to call it) is the same as the technical cost, which is listed on the card.  These cards don't have any mechanisms that change their own cost when you buy it.

- For the overpay cards, the effective cost and the technical cost do not necessarily match because (for at least Masterpiece and Stonemason) the real power, the primary purpose, the full function of the card comes from overpaying.

- As you increase what you pay for these cards, the power increases.  To be fully comprehensive, you would put these cards on multiple lists because their EFFECTS change at different costs.  They might as well be different (albeit similar) cards at different costs with different on-buy effects.

- It would be messy to rank (for example) Masterpiece on four different lists.  Which version of Masterpiece is most common?  Certainly not the $3 version.  Probably not the $4 version.  Maybe $5, maybe $6+.  So rank one of those, and adjust for the others.  It will be easiest that way because you are dealing with the most common case.

- I know that "common case" is hard to determine for Doctor and Herald.  Fine, put them on the base cost lists.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Overpay cards and the best cards lists
« Reply #207 on: June 21, 2013, 06:59:11 pm »
+1

The only problem I have with this is that there isn't somewhere to stick these guys. Having their own list is possible, sure, but they don't fit anywhere else, and a 4 card list is pretty lame - I mean, the ruins list and Knights list are, well, reasonably pointless as is. So they don't fit well anywhere, effectively, which is why I say to drop in on the nominal cost. But again, not a big deal.

Stonemason fits into the $6+ list pretty well.  Masterpiece would fit in with $5 or $6+.

The most minimum argument I can make is: Masterpiece doesn't get bought at $3, so why rank it with $3 cards?



You keep saying that it's hard to rank the overpays. Sure is. But this doesn't have an effect on the cost debate.

How not?  By moving the cards to another list, they are easier to rank and the results are more meaningful.




No, because LGG has ONE fixed alternate cost. The overpay cards have a large (possibly infinite) number of options. This changes things.

That was the whole point!  LGG has one fixed alternate cost and that's already weird to rank.  The overpay cards are even more difficult to rank because there are many more possibilities. 



You *never* get the 'full function of the card' then though, for the overpay cards. Well, stonemason would be 10. But the rest are basically unbounded (Doctor is bounded by the money you can play in a turn, herald by the actions you can have in your deck, masterpiece by the size of the silver pile...)

Yes, I discuss that in what you quoted.  That's why we turn to finding a common case.  But even in the extreme case, we would just put them in $6+.  As it is, I think it is reasonable to put Herald in $4, sure.  But it just doesn't make sense to put Masterpiece with $3 because at that price you are effectively buying a Copper.  Comparing Masterpiece with the other $3s is like comparing Witch or Goons or IGG to the $3s.  You can do it, but it's difficult and weird and the results don't mean as much to me.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Overpay cards and the best cards lists
« Reply #208 on: June 21, 2013, 07:21:40 pm »
+1

Maybe I should try another analogy?

Quote
Masterpiece - Treasure - $3+
-----------------------------------
$1
-----------------------------------
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. If you do, gain a Silver per $1 you overpaid.

Quote
Adequatepiece - Treasure - $3+
-----------------------------------
$1
-----------------------------------
When you buy this, you may overpay for it by $3. If you do, gain 3 Silvers.

Quote
Tolerablepiece - Treasure - $6
-----------------------------------
$1
-----------------------------------
When you buy this, gain 3 Silvers.

Quote
Failpiece - Treasure - $3
-----------------------------------
$1

Here we have four cards.  MP is the regular Masterpiece.  AP is a Masterpiece that is restricted to only overpaying by $3, no more, no less.  TP is a Masterpiece where you are forced to always overpay by $3.  FP is Masterpiece without overpaying at all.

Should we even bother ranking FP on the $3 list?  It is pointless because Silver does everything Failpiece can do better and at the same price.

TP is obviously ranked with the $6+ cards.  That is simply what it costs.

Now, AP.  Now it's getting tough.  AP:TP::LGG:IGG, so some of the earlier discussion applies here.  But anyway, AP is just FP and TP rolled into one.  FP was not worth ranking and TP should clearly be ranked with $6+ cards.  So shouldn't AP be ranked with $6+ cards as well?  If not, why not?

Finally, MP.  MP is AP with a slew more options.  Since FP is not worth ranking, then MP shouldn't be ranked at $3 either.  But should it go on the $4 list?  $5?  $6+?  Maybe all of them, because MP is different at all those costs, but for simplicity we could just pick the most common one.  What is most common?  Probably $5 or $6+, because $4 MP is almost as terrible as Failpiece.  $6+ encompasses more.

If it helps, I could make analogues for all the other costs too. :P



The argument for this example comes down to this: if it's not worth buying Masterpiece at $3 in a game, why would we rank Masterpiece at $3 on a list?
Logged

sudgy

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3431
  • Shuffle iT Username: sudgy
  • It's pronounced "SOO-jee"
  • Respect: +2706
    • View Profile
Re: Overpay cards and the best cards lists
« Reply #209 on: June 21, 2013, 07:26:47 pm »
+3

...Why do I keep checking this thread when I don't read any of it...
Logged
If you're wondering what my avatar is, watch this.

Check out my logic puzzle blog!

   Quote from: sudgy on June 31, 2011, 11:47:46 pm

Mic Qsenoch

  • 2015 DS Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1709
  • Respect: +4329
    • View Profile
Re: Overpay cards and the best cards lists
« Reply #210 on: June 21, 2013, 07:30:03 pm »
+6

I can't wait for the release of eHalcyon's expansion Dominion: Thought Experiment
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Overpay cards and the best cards lists
« Reply #211 on: June 21, 2013, 07:30:45 pm »
+6

I can't wait for the release of eHalcyon's expansion Dominion: Thought Experiment

Nobody wants to playtest it with me!
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Overpay cards and the best cards lists
« Reply #212 on: June 21, 2013, 07:31:50 pm »
0

The only problem I have with this is that there isn't somewhere to stick these guys. Having their own list is possible, sure, but they don't fit anywhere else, and a 4 card list is pretty lame - I mean, the ruins list and Knights list are, well, reasonably pointless as is. So they don't fit well anywhere, effectively, which is why I say to drop in on the nominal cost. But again, not a big deal.

Stonemason fits into the $6+ list pretty well.  Masterpiece would fit in with $5 or $6+.

The most minimum argument I can make is: Masterpiece doesn't get bought at $3, so why rank it with $3 cards?
Because it doesn't fit elsewhere either. You don't really buy it at 4, you might at 5, but you also might at 6, or 7, or whatever higher numbers. You can make the 'You usually get a different effect for it at a different price' argument for ANY price you give it. So sure, it's an argument to not make it 3, but you fail to give an alternative which isn't dogged by the same problem.

Quote
You keep saying that it's hard to rank the overpays. Sure is. But this doesn't have an effect on the cost debate.

How not?  By moving the cards to another list, they are easier to rank and the results are more meaningful.
I disagree that it's at all easier to rank them. All the points you are making just make them harder to rank overall.



Quote
No, because LGG has ONE fixed alternate cost. The overpay cards have a large (possibly infinite) number of options. This changes things.

That was the whole point!  LGG has one fixed alternate cost and that's already weird to rank.  The overpay cards are even more difficult to rank because there are many more possibilities. 
But the thing is, LGG has a specific alternate cost, so you can make an argument FOR that specific alternate cost. THESE have many different costs, so you can't do the same thing.


This is the big issue. You can of course make the case that they (well, stonemason and masterpiece) don't really function as having a cost equal to that printed on the card. Fine. They don't. I agree. But you can't come up with a single concrete place to put them. Whatever price you pick, you can make THE SAME argument that they don't really function as having THAT cost either. This is the problem.

Mic Qsenoch

  • 2015 DS Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1709
  • Respect: +4329
    • View Profile
Re: Overpay cards and the best cards lists
« Reply #213 on: June 21, 2013, 07:36:52 pm »
0

This is the big issue. You can of course make the case that they (well, stonemason and masterpiece) don't really function as having a cost equal to that printed on the card. Fine. They don't. I agree. But you can't come up with a single concrete place to put them. Whatever price you pick, you can make THE SAME argument that they don't really function as having THAT cost either. This is the problem.

Right, so now we can play a second (third?) level game: rank the possible price points for appropriateness. Which one is best? Maybe this is too hard to decide, maybe not.
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Overpay cards and the best cards lists
« Reply #214 on: June 21, 2013, 07:42:22 pm »
0

This is the big issue. You can of course make the case that they (well, stonemason and masterpiece) don't really function as having a cost equal to that printed on the card. Fine. They don't. I agree. But you can't come up with a single concrete place to put them. Whatever price you pick, you can make THE SAME argument that they don't really function as having THAT cost either. This is the problem.

Right, so now we can play a second (third?) level game: rank the possible price points for appropriateness. Which one is best? Maybe this is too hard to decide, maybe not.
Right, but as I've stated above, I think this is a question without an answer, most principally because you always have to consider them all wherever you put it. But okay, whatever, it is all academic, and I don't really have much interest in noting the most important cost gameplay-wise. For Doctor, it's just $3, Herald, just $4, Stonemason dependent on kingdom actions available, and Masterpiece is the worst, as it's really irreconcilable - slapping any fixed cost on it hurts it substantially in more or less every game.

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Overpay cards and the best cards lists
« Reply #215 on: June 21, 2013, 07:46:11 pm »
0

But the thing is, LGG has a specific alternate cost, so you can make an argument FOR that specific alternate cost. THESE have many different costs, so you can't do the same thing.


This is the big issue. You can of course make the case that they (well, stonemason and masterpiece) don't really function as having a cost equal to that printed on the card. Fine. They don't. I agree. But you can't come up with a single concrete place to put them. Whatever price you pick, you can make THE SAME argument that they don't really function as having THAT cost either. This is the problem.

Maybe my latest (and probably last) thought experiment helps address this?

I concede on Doctor and Herald, mostly because they do function at the cost printed on the card.  But as you say, SM and MP don't.  If people agree on that, then we have progress, hooray!

So you say that you the problem is that there is no other place to put them.  I disagree.  It may be hard to pin down, but we don't have to shy away from that.

MP at $3 is rubbish, we have agreed on that.
MP at $4?  I suggest that this is also rubbish and, once again, Silver is just better.  Silver costs less and is better in most circumstances for not being tied to a junky Copper.
MP at $5?  Maybe.  We'll get back to that.
MP at $6+?  Also maybe.  And those are all the (relevant) lists we have.

So, $5 or $6+?  I think arguments can be made for either, but I push $6+.  $5 Masterpiece is pretty much like Cache anyway.  Wherever Cache lands, $5 MP should be just below or just above.  Ranking it just isn't as interesting.  $6+ is a natural fit because it covers the spectrum from $6 and up.



If you think $4 MP is worth ranking too, well OK.  Then we have like three mediocre category choices that are difficult to pick between and one really bad choice that we agree simply does not work. 

You simply won't buy MP at $3.
You'll maybe buy it at $4, $5, or $6+.

It makes no sense to rank MP at $3.
It might make sense to rank it at $4, $5, or $6+.

Just because it's hard to pick among the other three possibilities doesn't mean we should default to the worst one.
Logged

michaeljb

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1422
  • Shuffle iT Username: michaeljb
  • Respect: +2113
    • View Profile
Logged
🚂 Give 18xx games a chance 🚂

Witherweaver

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6476
  • Shuffle iT Username: Witherweaver
  • Respect: +7861
    • View Profile
Re: Overpay cards and the best cards lists
« Reply #217 on: June 21, 2013, 08:25:01 pm »
0

Maybe I should try another analogy?

Quote
Masterpiece - Treasure - $3+
-----------------------------------
$1
-----------------------------------
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. If you do, gain a Silver per $1 you overpaid.

Quote
Adequatepiece - Treasure - $3+
-----------------------------------
$1
-----------------------------------
When you buy this, you may overpay for it by $3. If you do, gain 3 Silvers.

Quote
Tolerablepiece - Treasure - $6
-----------------------------------
$1
-----------------------------------
When you buy this, gain 3 Silvers.

Quote
Failpiece - Treasure - $3
-----------------------------------
$1

Here we have four cards.  MP is the regular Masterpiece.  AP is a Masterpiece that is restricted to only overpaying by $3, no more, no less.  TP is a Masterpiece where you are forced to always overpay by $3.  FP is Masterpiece without overpaying at all.

Should we even bother ranking FP on the $3 list?  It is pointless because Silver does everything Failpiece can do better and at the same price.

I think this is the crux of our different views.   

I'm saying you can rank MP against $3 cards by considering the extra mount you have to pay to be a limitation in its ability.  Or as its strength, depending on which direction you start looking at it form. (If you're thinking, "Sweet I can more Silver!" then it's limiting because there is a cost and you're giving up more expensive cards.  If you're thinking, "Man this is a really bad $3 copper" then it's a boon because, hey, it's much better than that.)

You don't like thinking of it that way because, hey, you could have bought a more expensive card for that amount.  But I say you just take that into account when you give it a rank.  You say that's hard to do, but I say you're really already doing pretty similar tradeoff type estimations when you ranked all the other cards. 

I don't think ranking <Fixed>P on the <FixedCost> list is relevant*, because when you're ranking MP (on the $3 card list, of course) you ought to be taking into account its entire functionality---it's the variable and optional overpay that makes the card.  It doesn't make it a $6 card, even if you spend $3+$3 on it in 62% of the situations.

If it's going to go on a list other than $3, it has to go on all of them.  Otherwise you're picking arbitrarily and inaccurately.  Okay, so say you do that, just like you're doing with your <clevername>Pieces.  You consider each fixed overpayment and add $3 and keep track in your head that the cost is only $3 for purposes of stuff that cares about cost. You rank it last on the $3 list, obviously.  You make up a witty name for the $4 version and rank it there, same for $5 and for TolerablePiece, and for all the >=$7 versions. (How does $6 MP compare to $7 MP compare to $8 MP and beyond?  We'll get back to that.)  Okay so you've ranked it for all $X>=3. 

Now, what do you know about the strength of Masterpiece?  Well its effectiveness is a function of the overpay amount, and we've basically listed out the function for each element in its domain.  What do you get from looking at one list?  Not much, because you're only looking the value of the function for one point in the domain.  You're not going to get a complete picture.    Okay so you look at all the lists.  So, you know it's a bad $3 card, a mediocre $4 card, a good $5 card, a pretty awesome $6+ card (does it fall off?  probably.  Are $20 MPs relevant in situations other than Feodum?)

(some edits to the end of this paragraph):
Now what does that tell you about Masterpiece over all?  Well that depends on where you put it in the lists, but hey you probably have some kind of ballpark "goodness" estimate in your head from all that valuing you did in your thought experiment.  But none of those individual lists told us anything about Masterpiece as a whole.  We only evaluated its image for each element in its domain, we didn't value the function itself as the object.  We should do that and put it somewhere.  Where?  Well it can't go on a list of any fixed price, because it's not a fixed price.  Well, the $6+ list looks promising because it includes cards of different costs.  Though really it does this because there are only a few $7 cards and one $8 card and putting them on their own list isn't enlightening enough.  But it shouldn't go on the $6+ list because, hey, that's misleading---it can be bought for $3, $4 and $5 and those facts are relevant, or else we'd be looking at a $6 card in the first place and not a $3 card.  And also because, on the $6+ list it still has different costs.  Is $6 MP better than $7 MP?  $8MP?  $3+N MP where N is the number of silvers left in the supply?  Is a $10MP better than a King's Court?  These judgements are now hard because you have variable prices.  So then you say, well, you take that variability into account when you rank it.  It's on the $6+ list but you have to note that it could be bought for less and it can be bought for more, so you know these things when you give it a rank.  But that's my whole point in the first place---the variable cost is what you use to give the card a rank. 

So put it on the $3 list, because we've ranked the cards by cost and it costs $3.  Yes it has a wonky ability in its overpay, but lots of cards have wonky abilities and that's, well, the entire point of the whole ranking thing, right? 

Quote
TP is obviously ranked with the $6+ cards.  That is simply what it costs.

Now, AP.  Now it's getting tough.  AP:TP::LGG:IGG, so some of the earlier discussion applies here.  But anyway, AP is just FP and TP rolled into one.  FP was not worth ranking and TP should clearly be ranked with $6+ cards.  So shouldn't AP be ranked with $6+ cards as well?  If not, why not?

Finally, MP.  MP is AP with a slew more options.  Since FP is not worth ranking, then MP shouldn't be ranked at $3 either.  But should it go on the $4 list?  $5?  $6+?  Maybe all of them, because MP is different at all those costs, but for simplicity we could just pick the most common one.  What is most common?  Probably $5 or $6+, because $4 MP is almost as terrible as Failpiece.  $6+ encompasses more.

If it helps, I could make analogues for all the other costs too. :P

The argument for this example comes down to this: if it's not worth buying Masterpiece at $3 in a game, why would we rank Masterpiece at $3 on a list?

Because it is $3; that's what its cost is, and that cost is not an arbitrary number and it does matter.  It's also not worth buying Duchess at $2, or Peddler at $8. 


*Okay, I really mean "relevant by itself for a given fixed cost".  Taking all the costs together and considering the mapping is relevant.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2013, 09:02:37 pm by Witherweaver »
Logged

Powerman

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 766
  • Respect: +605
    • View Profile
Re: Overpay cards and the best cards lists
« Reply #218 on: June 21, 2013, 09:38:45 pm »
+1

I think the problem with the LGG vs. IGG (or any of the like arguments) is the lack of variability.  When given 2 natural points, it is natural to group with either.  I think a more apt comparison is:

Ill-Gotten Gains
$5 Treasure
Worth $1
When you play this, you may gain a Copper, putting it into your hand.
______________
When you gain this, each other player gains a Curse.

vs.

Partial-Gotten Gains
$2+ Treasure
Worth $1
When you play this, you may gain a Copper, putting it into your hand.
______________
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. If you do, your opponents gain a confusion; your opponents gain a -1/3 VP chip per $1 you overpay.

At times, it is better, at times worse.  But, where should this card get grouped?  $5?  $8?
Logged
A man on a mission.

theory

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3603
  • Respect: +6121
    • View Profile
    • Dominion Strategy
Re: Overpay cards and the best cards lists
« Reply #219 on: June 21, 2013, 09:48:17 pm »
+1

You could think about Cache.  Its coppers are something we have to weigh in knocking it lower accordingly. Similarly, buying Masterpiece at >$3, well, it's just another disadvantage of the card, much like how Cache has a cost associated with it beyond the $5.  Weigh that disadvantage with all the others.  Now, it'll be difficult, and uncertain, but we can just accept that especially since so much of that exists already.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Overpay cards and the best cards lists
« Reply #220 on: June 21, 2013, 10:05:28 pm »
0

You don't like thinking of it that way because, hey, you could have bought a more expensive card for that amount.  But I say you just take that into account when you give it a rank.  You say that's hard to do, but I say you're really already doing pretty similar tradeoff type estimations when you ranked all the other cards. 

The reason why I don't like this argument (that you can just take into account MP at higher costs) is that this is tantamount to saying that we could very well rank IGG on the $2 list.  Why can't you just take into account that it costs more?  As Robz earlier demonstrated when he began trying the LGG exercise, it's just hard.  The trade-off estimation for cost is something that we've attempted to abstract away by the very method of dividing the lists according to cost.


If it's going to go on a list other than $3, it has to go on all of them.  Otherwise you're picking arbitrarily and inaccurately.

I disagree with this.  The choice is not neccesaarily arbitrary nor inaccurate.  In the example with Masterpiece, I have provided reasoning again and again for why I feel $6+ is the best place for it.  I could do the same for Stonemason.  I CANNOT do it for Doctor, which is why I concede there.  And Herald I would put on $4 anyway, so there's no disagreement there.  As far as accuracy goes, I am willing to bet that Masterpiece would be bought a negligible number of times at $3, and also very rarely at $4.  So, $5 or $6+?  I don't know, you got me there.  But either one is more accurate that $3.

In the end, your argument seems to be "rank Masterpiece on the $3 list because that is what it says on the card".  But my argument is, yes, that's what it says on the card, but that is not the cost at which it is bought.





I think the problem with the LGG vs. IGG (or any of the like arguments) is the lack of variability.  When given 2 natural points, it is natural to group with either.  I think a more apt comparison is:

Ill-Gotten Gains
$5 Treasure
Worth $1
When you play this, you may gain a Copper, putting it into your hand.
______________
When you gain this, each other player gains a Curse.

vs.

Partial-Gotten Gains
$2+ Treasure
Worth $1
When you play this, you may gain a Copper, putting it into your hand.
______________
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. If you do, your opponents gain a confusion; your opponents gain a -1/3 VP chip per $1 you overpay.

At times, it is better, at times worse.  But, where should this card get grouped?  $5?  $8?

I've addressed this concern in the X-Piece thought experiment.  PGG is not a good parallel though.  I believe it would have to be ranked at $3 because I expect that will be most common.  It is the cheapest you can get it and still inflict damage on opponents, in the form of a Confusion card.  The -VP is gravy, and probably people would be willing to overpay more to cause more damage, but yeah, it gets tough from that point on.  It will still almost never get purchased at $2, like poor NGG, so it shouldn't be on the $2 list.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Overpay cards and the best cards lists
« Reply #221 on: June 21, 2013, 10:12:59 pm »
0

You could think about Cache.  Its coppers are something we have to weigh in knocking it lower accordingly. Similarly, buying Masterpiece at >$3, well, it's just another disadvantage of the card, much like how Cache has a cost associated with it beyond the $5.  Weigh that disadvantage with all the others.  Now, it'll be difficult, and uncertain, but we can just accept that especially since so much of that exists already.

My point is that the disadvantage of having to pay extra for Masterpiece is more difficult to weigh than the other things, and moreover, it is something we try to remove on the rankings by the very act of dividing the list by cost.  If we compare Masterpiece to the other $3 cards and have to take into account that you have to pay >$3 to unlock its potential, why do we not just rank King's Court on the $3 list too and take into accont that it costs an extra $4 compared to other things on the list?

I mean, people have suggested that we just rank one giant master list.  Were those suggestions serious?

I think we have to draw lines somewhere, and cost is a good property to use for that.  The effective cost for Masterpiece is >$3, so it should be put on some >$3 list.




This may be a good time to note that, in the end, I am happy to go with whatever Qvist decides to do.  He's already posted in this thread that he'd just use the base cost.  Maybe he'll change his mind!  But if he doesn't, that's OK.  But the decision still perplexes me.  Through the discussion, it seems like the only deciding factor for those people is the technical price as listed on the card.  That just doesn't strike me as adequate.  WW has admitted as much, that Masterpiece and SM don't function at their technical costs, but he favours using the base cost because he doesn't think they can really go anywhere at all (hopefully I have not misrepresented him in this summary).  But I say that we CAN find an appropriate place.  At the very least, we can do better than judging Masterpiece at a cost where it never gets purchased.

<Insert tension-alleviating joke about Scout being a card at a cost where it never gets purchased.>
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Overpay cards and the best cards lists
« Reply #222 on: June 21, 2013, 10:23:58 pm »
0

I mean, people have suggested that we just rank one giant master list.  Were those suggestions serious?

Yes. I mean, this is actually quite clearly the best thing to do, except that people won't do it out of laze and/or unwieldiness.

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Overpay cards and the best cards lists
« Reply #223 on: June 21, 2013, 10:30:59 pm »
0

I mean, people have suggested that we just rank one giant master list.  Were those suggestions serious?

Yes. I mean, this is actually quite clearly the best thing to do, except that people won't do it out of laze and/or unwieldiness.

Well I could toss my vote in for that.  If I'm going to be baffled by comparing cards of different [effective] costs, I might as well be in for the whole shebang. :P
Logged

ftl

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2056
  • Shuffle iT Username: ftl
  • Respect: +1345
    • View Profile
Re: Overpay cards and the best cards lists
« Reply #224 on: June 21, 2013, 10:41:52 pm »
+1

Man, I'd vote against that. It's just too big and too unweildy a list, and I'd end up having no idea where to compare cards.

If we're using the overpaying mechanic as a reason to to ditch cost-based card segregation entirely, I'd instead suggest more limited lists by function - "rate the villages", "rate the terminal draw", "rate the cursers", "rate the cards with on-buy/on-gain abilities", etc.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11  All
 

Page created in 0.171 seconds with 20 queries.