Author Topic: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall  (Read 9063 times)

Offline ParadoxOfChoice

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 164
  • HA! Surely you jest.
    • View Profile
Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
« Reply #45 on: December 08, 2013, 05:50:07 AM »
Just to be clear I'm not dismissing any of WWK's points, as everything he's said about the trade scenario represents a long lasting problem in online game design. It's very clear that changes to cards can yield negative reactions from the players in various situations or sometimes percentages of the playerbase as a whole, as can changes in nearly any game, some more extreme than others. It's just that I do not think the points made should yield the conclusion that was made. This is not and should not be treated as an ordinary card game, and however cliche it may sound, you cannot allow negativity to imprison the game to a singular tool for adjustment, so long as positive effects shadow or create that negativity.

If everyone had every card, what option sounds the best: [Balance the game for everyone], or [Balance only tournaments, and in a very rigid way].
That is the way it looks to me; that's the choice that's being made from that negativity.

I also fear that Mark Rosewater's 'diversity of power rewards skilled players' segment may soon be taken largely out of context in terms of its justification of imbalances in a game, as it's a self fulfilling cycle that does not need to be created or maintained. He defends himself excellently , but drafting will always reward the most skilled player, even more when the game is perfectly balanced, and 100x more because we play infinity wars. The more diverse the power level, the more luck becomes involved. Sure the 'more skilled' player is going to avoid the 'bad' cards and the other guy grabs them. Cool! That gave an advantage, but the problem with that argument from Rosewater is that you do not design a game around 'pro'>'noob', because you end up with "anything that takes any skill" as an acceptable solution to the problem. Instead you design the game around 'pro'vs.'pro' 'noob'vs'noob' , you make it user friendly but the apex must be extremely solid. And of course the game can never be perfectly balanced, but that becomes especially true without patches!

Infinity wars already grants you the ability to show skill beyond deck management, but even in MTG having landmines for new players in draft is not an acceptable justification for any imbalance, be it a bad card or a good one. If it's a bad card the game is better if it is increased in power and a good card is the opposite, as the game has reached it's apex when the choice between the cards of your draft is the hardest decision you've ever made, so long as your life depends on it and you've mastered the game. This scenario highlights both your own interpretations and the estimated strength of the cards in total. A new player still creates these images of differentiation regardless of how close the power levels of the cards become, because even tiny differences can lose the game in spectacular ways, thereby removing the need for intentional power diversity.

Does anyone see the largest correlation between extreme balancing and extreme success in online gaming today?
(It's not MTGO, and it has no solution)
"explaining why we adopt the avatars we do is sometimes easy: we decide to look like an elf because elves get +5 Intelligence and we want to max out our mage build. Put that one in your thesis and smoke it." -Psychology Of Games

Offline WWKnight

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2179
    • View Profile
    • dTCG Sanctum - One stop for all your IW needs!
Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
« Reply #46 on: December 08, 2013, 08:19:49 AM »
I'm late to the party but I have to derail again for this.
Before that I'll just say that I think all cards should have meaningful uses, vanilla or not.
This little guy could use a +0/+1. As it is now there's just too many things that have 10 damage for him to be a good blocker, and most things have 2/4/8 hp so 3 damage rarely changes the outcome. Giving him a +1/0 is a little out of flavor but would also be good enough to give him a role. Anything beyond either of those might be going too far.

So then, on to this thing:
([Bunch of most likely true stuff])

...

Banning cards for standard tournament play is a fine (and preferred) method of dealing with a problem. The card is still usable outside of ranked and tournament play, and such events wouldn't happen with frequency.

And the final option (patch the card) is just bad, bad, bad for the health of the game. I see you can't see how, but you'll have to take mine and everyone else's word for it. Example, if I had a brilliant build around me card, and it was on your watch list, I'd just completely ignore it.  It'd sit in my collection and gather dust? Will it be buffed? Nerfed? Will I build a super fun deck with it only to have it no longer work?

These are negative feelings created directly by lightmare. I no longer have any trust in what they are selling, and these are all thoughts and feelings that have nothing to do with trade or resale value.

You buy a card. The card is banned. You just payed for someone else's mistake. What is the average reaction to this scenario?

The person losing his trust in what is sold upon reinforcement of that product is the minority, the outcast, the black sheep.
The person that is happy when his favorite card is nerfed is an outcast, the black sheep, a minority.
The person that is angry when a card that he always loses against gets nerfed is a black sheep, a minority, the outcast.
The person that is happy when a card they have gets banned is retarded. Is anyone here retarded? No?
So don't assume anyone is gonna hop on the ban my martyr golems instead of changing them slightly bandwagon, but go ahead and build it anyway if you like. After all banning cards in a TCG is widely tolerated. Yay! Does that make it ok? Does the fact that most people tolerate it make it the best solution? Are you sure it's even tolerable in DIGITAL FORMAT?!   (it is not)


For all of those that instead see IW for what it is, and can be, allow me to build your rallying flag on the topic of adjustable dynamics:

The global impact of any change in value on a previously traded card is a zero-sum equation, as is all derived fragmentation outside of the following, with very few exceptions.

<assume 'player' is 'active player'>
Value increasing on a card is positive (for each player that used or now uses the card).
Value increasing on a card is negative (for each player that loses against that card)
Value decreasing on a card is negative (for each player that used the card).
Value decreasing on a card is positive (for each player that previously lost against the card)
Value increase on any card is positive (for each player that owns that card)
Value decrease on any card is negative (for each player that owns that card)

I'm not anticipating any argument with the above, just with the amount by which it matters. Right?
So then the best lens to view this under is obvious: a card being changed in value.

1:Value increase
Each player that owns the card is a +
Each player that receives the card is a +
Each player that loses to the card is a -
Each player that traded away the card is a -
Each player that traded for the card is a +

2:Value decrease
Each player that owns the card is a -
Each player that receives the card is a -
Each player that previously lost to the card is a +
Each player that traded away the card is a +
Each player that traded for the card is a -

Then there's the problem of  (+!=+ , +!=-, -!=-), there is no 1-1 correlation here. For example the number of players that own a given card can be drastically different than the number of players that have lost to or will now lose to that card. So maybe it's not INSANELY OBVIOUS that a value increase is better than a value decrease for a bad card, or that a value decrease makes the playerbase happy on an overpowerd card. I shall clarify.

Suppose the magnitude in value change (as in either direction, absolute, etc) of the given card is 'V'.
Best to think of it in terms of % change and not flat change for this example.
So a 25% change would be 1.25 regardless of direction as the card already has 100% of its original value to set scale (1.0).

1:Value increase
+(% of players that own the card)*V
+([rarity*avgPacks*time*insanely huge formula])*V
-(% of players that own the card * penetration rate * avg games per player * 0.5)/time
Trade (+/-)*V

2:Value decrease
-(% of players that own the card)*V
-([rarity*avgPacks*time*insanely huge formula])*V
+(% of players that owned the card * previous penetration rate * avg games per player * 0.5)/time
Trade (-/+)*V

[50% winrate (0.5) for simplicity, though the cards power can change this number]
example: 50% winrate card is buffed to 75% = negative reaction from (% of players that own the card * penetration rate * avg games per player * 0.75 *(1-penetration))

Obviously there are many more variables and scenarios that lead to players reacting in positive/negative ways, these are assumed to be fragmentation and across large numbers will be evenly distributed.
Exceptions are made when a cards winrate becomes extremely high/low or an artifact of the card creates issues within the game. These things cannot be generalized.

So then with these things in mind the largest factors can be identified:
 Rarity determines the number of players that own the card.
 The card winrate determines the number of players that have lost to that card.
 The penetration rate is mostly determined by the number of players that own that card and the winrate.
 The amount of value change greatly alters the impact of ownership.

example: 40% winrate card, 20% ownership, 5% penetration, 51% value change:
(51% value change assumes instant winrate and penetration altered by +/-25% (40%+25%=50%, 0.4+0.25*0.4=0.5) while really it changes gradiently over time)
(winrate calculated as linear floating point for simplicity, when in reality 0.75 winrate is not actually a 50% change in impact from 0.5 it is exponential and asymptotic near 1.0 or zero)


{case 1}
51% increase (winrate 50%, penetration 6%)
+(0.2)*1.51
+(rarity*packs*1.51)*time
-(0.2 * 0.06 * G * 0.5 * (1-0.06))/time

If G = 25 games per player before impact decay
Impact= (20%*1.51)-(20%*6%*25*50%*94%)
Impact= 0.302-0.141 = 0.161  [+packs over time excluded]


{case 2}
51% decrease (winrate 30%, penetration 4%)
-(0.2)*1.51
-(rarity*packs*1.51)*time
+(0.2 * 0.05 * G * 0.4*(1-0.05))/time  <previous winrate and penetration>

If G = 25 games per player before impact decay
Impact= (20%*5%*25*0.4*95%)-(20%*1.51) 
Impact= 0.095 - 0.302 = -0.207  [-packs over time excluded]

A positive change in value on the weak card has a positive impact immediately and over time (New winrate exceeding 50% diminishes this).
And decreasing the already weak card in value has a long-reaching negative impact both immediate and over time, even with only 20% ownership.
These hold true for the opposite scenarios as well, for an amazing card the positive numbers are going to come from decreasing the cards value.
The number of games per average and decay rate are influential as well, and if taken to the extreme can skew the numbers, but I'm assuming the average player doesn't play 50 games a day, there's probably not many that do in fact.

Mind you these are all just simple examples.
Yet even with many details removed, a plethora of things can be derived from this type of thinking, but the most important is:
Moving the average winrate per card toward 50% is the optimal solution, even if seemingly impossible to finalize.
To do this you cannot simply set the winrate of various cards to ZERO, you must CHANGE THEM.



P.S. Delete Teemo.

As one of the players who struggling dealing with 6's instead of 3's, you lost me at math...
I'm a pretty big deal around here.

Feel privileged.

Offline Hitori

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1668
  • #YoboSwag
    • View Profile
Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
« Reply #47 on: December 08, 2013, 01:49:13 PM »
Paradox I love reading your posts, super informative.
I wish I had more experience with TCGs economy/tournaments to really be able to participate more in this discussion.
I conceive that a great part of the miseries of mankind are brought upon them by false estimates they have made of the value of things.


Offline scoobyfred27

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1073
    • View Profile
Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
« Reply #48 on: December 08, 2013, 02:15:39 PM »
Just so you guys know, if you're ever vs WWK, just start putting out random numbers and mathematical symbols, he will surrender.
Quote from: Teremus
Puffy actually made Infinity Wars by himself.

Offline WWKnight

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2179
    • View Profile
    • dTCG Sanctum - One stop for all your IW needs!
Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
« Reply #49 on: December 09, 2013, 11:24:58 AM »
Not a lie.
I'm a pretty big deal around here.

Feel privileged.

Offline DrayGon777

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2107
  • Friendly Neighborhood Dragon
    • View Profile
Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
« Reply #50 on: December 09, 2013, 03:06:00 PM »
Ok, so maybe I'm not quoting WWK now, but it's still technically about him. :P

Also, I'm glad I love math now.  :D
Just so you guys know, if you're ever vs WWK, just start putting out random numbers and mathematical symbols, he will surrender.