edgeofhearing wrote:
If there's a problem it's that, in RPS, all options are equally powerful. They have a 100% win rate against the thing they beat and a 0% win rate against the things they lose to.
Obviously, that's not what we want in this game. I'd say that, optimally, each has, say, a 60% win rate against the thing they beat, and a 40% win rate against the things they lose to. You're never 100% out of the game, but you can make smart meta picks and improve your chances of beating what you expect to see.
But that's also what we have in the game either. I'd say what we have is roughly closer to:
Battle Borg 90% vs Speed, 40% vs Defensive
Speed 70% vs Defensive, 10% vs Battle Borg
Defensive 60% vs Battle Borg, 30% vs Speed
the thing is, this doesnt matter. the meta game is a game theory problem. if the problem is a rps-like problem, then the math shakes out to the same result.
your right that in pure rps, one option beats another 100% of the time. but lets call a game rps-like if one option beats a second option more than 50% of the time, the second option beats the third option more than 50% of the time, and the third option beats the first option more than 50% of hte time. you gave numbers that match this, so we are theorizing that star trek ccg meta is a rps-like game. thats an assumption and simplifciation we always make when discussing this problem here, so i dont think its unreasonable.
so in any rps-like game, the math predicts the exact same result i gave you, even if its just rps-like and not pure rps. right now there are too many speed solvers, so battle borg is the most profitable deck choice. smart players will see that meta and will shift to battle borgs. when enough players do so, then players will see that defensive is the smartest deck choice, because there are enough battle borg decks playing to make it worhtwhile. and then teh same thing happens to speed solvers. its a cycle.
in the very long run, you reach nash equilibrium. the numbers of nash equilibrium change depending on the nature of the rps-like game. for teh example numbers you gave me, you get battle borgs 28.6% of the time, speed solvers 14.3% of the time, and defensive decks 57.1% of the time. that means if eveeryone plays game theory optimal strategy in there deck choices, then players will pick one of those decks with that percentage to make, each time they go to a tournament.
(tangent: i actually think having a nash equilibrium where defensive decks make up more then half of the probability is actually optimal for the health and variety of the game. it keeps games the most interesting.)
anyway, i dont think well ever see true nash equilibrium, because we dont play enough games, we dont have enough players, the initial numbers change every time new cards are made, and because players make suboptimal choices all the time. but the math is rock solid, so i dont see the problem in terms of game balance.
And the other end of the problem is that you can't just substitute Battle in place of Battle Borg. Battle Borg is way more effective than any other similar deck (though Kevin's Dominion, in the hands of Kevin specifically is close).
i dont see the issue here. if battle borgs are significantly differnt from other battle decks, then you can gthink of it as rock paper scissors with 4 options. assuming roughly similar math above, you still get meta cycle that shifts through one to another and back again, with a nash equilibrium.
if you are saying that battle borg is strictly superior strategy to non-borg battle, then how is that any different then saying that fed solver is strictly superior strategy to kazon solver? thats a different issue entirely, and not really what op is complaining about, is it? op isnt complaining that battle borg dominates non-borg battle, op is complaining that battle borg dominates non-battle.
And the third end of the problem is, in RPS, you don't have players whose game playing style makes them naturally gravitate to Rock, Paper, or Scissors.
well thats not an issue of game balance. thats an issue of the current meta swinging one way and rather then going with the flow until the meta shifts back there way, they complain about it. players have a choice: they can look at the current meta and make the deck that has the best chance to win, or they can pick a deck they personally like and play it even though they know the current meta is against it.
that will always be the case, no matter what, as long as a meta exists. and as long as any deck doesnt have completely equal chance of beating any other deck, based on deck type, then there will always be a meta. and theres no way to make all deck types completely even and equal in 100% of games, theres just too many variables and cards for that.
(incidentally, if they insist on playing the deck types that are suboptimal for the current meta, the irony si that the meta will shift even slower, or not at all, because there refsual to play other deck types means that the deck types they hate will always stay most profitable to play).