Check out the trials and troubles of the first Will of the Collective, where the community designed a card for the first time!
 
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#16020
Hoss-Drone wrote: You should get a job on Fox News. They love to do this too - forget to mention the obvious that hurts their slanted viewpoint. You dont need to draw CM! to luck into its benefit. It could just happen to be there for you. If i stock 3 in my dilemma pile of 30, and my opponent attempts space first, i actually DONT want to draw into any because then I would have an increased chance of the kill at random. Since I know i'm already playing a consuming pile, i feel pretty confident i will luck into at least 1 CM! when i've consume somewhere between 3 and 8 out of my pile of 22.
I thought people would be aware enough to realize the "lucky" consume is no where near consistent enough to count out. It is one of those things that is really cool when it happens, but even if you consume 8 of 22 and stock 3 copies, CM! will trigger an average (and median) once.
That its only a *slightly* added benefit is a matter of opinion. I can line up a row of MN players who can attest the effectiveness of my Tragic Turn pile. When you figure in that your deck strategy will or should synergize with your dilemma pile (and vice versa) the benefit is obvious - my dp kills some more effectively, my deck kills some which = i win i hope. When my opp has 22 people in his deck and my deck kills 8 and my dp kills 8, he's left with only 6 to solve his third mission - and those 6 will often need to be the right 6. Not exactly a slight benefit.
So what is the marginal benefit of using Consume Me!?
Basically, i dont think you can judge the power or benefit of a dilemma in a vacuum. You dont just play the dilemma without anything else.
That is my point... why is everyone so adamant that it should cost 2 when they haven't even played with it? I am not saying it should definitely cost less than 2, but, at the very least, we should experiment and try to see how low it can go.
When CM! is randomly consumed for the kill without setting itself up - it did cost 0. You pay the 2 for the gaurantee of being on top AND getting a choice kill AND reducing the consume cost of another dilemma minus 1 - which to me makes 2 feel incredibly cheap. Otherwise, as i said, it cost you 0 when you get the benefit.
As pointed out, the random kill is not exactly reliable, so no real weight should be put upon it.

Keep in mind the cheap-kill only occurs.... if you stock the consume dilemmas, and if you draw them with Consume Me!, and if you can and decide to use them.

Is is really worth going that far out of you way for a chance at a "cheap kill"?
User avatar
Second Edition Design Manager
By The Guardian (Richard New)
 - Second Edition Design Manager
 -  
2E World Quarter-Finalist 2021
#16021
MilesStuntDouble wrote:... I have yet to read anyone comment regarding its cost being too low.
I have said that I thought the figure would be higher, and I still think it fits.

Also, your argument is, "Why don't we just cost it 0 and then revise it up if it is too powerful?" Conversely (in true MSD logical fashion), I could argue, "Why don't we just cost it 2 and then revise it up or down depending on its power?" It's all about playtesting, so I'd suggest not making a big deal about it anyway. The argument reduces down to peanuts.
User avatar
 
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Socialite
#16036
The Guardian wrote: Also, your argument is, "Why don't we just cost it 0 and then revise it up if it is too powerful?" Conversely (in true MSD logical fashion), I could argue, "Why don't we just cost it 2 and then revise it up or down depending on its power?" It's all about playtesting, so I'd suggest not making a big deal about it anyway. The argument reduces down to peanuts.
Yeah, thats another argument i forgot to mention. Thanks guardian - couldnt have said it better myself.

I understand MSD's underlying argument/point: that we shouldnt rigidly follow a formula that may not apply to every situation. However, I think MSD needs to remember that whatever the formula doesnt cover the playtesting should. If it falls outside the formula drastically than it will be caught. Until then - trust the formula.
 
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#16051
The Guardian wrote: Also, your argument is, "Why don't we just cost it 0 and then revise it up if it is too powerful?" Conversely (in true MSD logical fashion), I could argue, "Why don't we just cost it 2 and then revise it up or down depending on its power?" It's all about playtesting, so I'd suggest not making a big deal about it anyway. The argument reduces down to peanuts.
The converse works- provided that a search algorithm is actually applied to find the lowest appropriate cost. You can find the appropriate cost by starting at the top just as well as working downwards. Rest assured, this is not how playtesting works. All playtesting becomes is a verifier that the cards have a cost that is *greater than or equal to* the minimum acceptable cost (i.e., not too powerful for its cost). It is for more uncommon for a card's cost to be reduced as a result of rigorous playtesting than for it to be raised. This is because
Hoss-Drone wrote: I understand MSD's underlying argument/point: that we shouldnt rigidly follow a formula that may not apply to every situation. However, I think MSD needs to remember that whatever the formula doesnt cover the playtesting should. If it falls outside the formula drastically than it will be caught. Until then - trust the formula.
How can I trust a formula that I know nothing about?

There are numerous cards that have fallen above of the formula and not been caught. Temba, His Arms Wide is a famous example, and Genesis Effect is another.

I would like to reiterate that, in reality, playtesting only catches and changes cards that are too good. Hence- starting with a lower cost have working upwards is more appropriate.
 
By whampiri
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#16070
I would like to reiterate that, in reality, playtesting only catches and changes cards that are too good. Hence- starting with a lower cost have working upwards is more appropriate.
While not 100% true, i can see the angle that you're coming from here. However if certain cards aren't tested properly by the play team, would that not indicate that a card is bad/overcosted?
User avatar
 
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Socialite
#16104
MilesStuntDouble wrote: How can I trust a formula that I know nothing about?
If you have a problem with the formula that why arent you complaining about it more often. We've been trusting the formula for 6 years now and nothing drastic has gotten by. Other than Brad saying that a couple dils are undercosted like pinned down its pretty much been A-OK.

Stop rockin the boat. If you want off, just get off.
User avatar
Second Edition Design Manager
By The Guardian (Richard New)
 - Second Edition Design Manager
 -  
2E World Quarter-Finalist 2021
#16110
MilesStuntDouble wrote:I would like to reiterate that, in reality, playtesting only catches and changes cards that are too good. Hence- starting with a lower cost have working upwards is more appropriate.
Then, we're all set. As I mentioned before, I think it's too low.
 
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#16148
Hoss-Drone wrote:
MilesStuntDouble wrote: How can I trust a formula that I know nothing about?
If you have a problem with the formula that why arent you complaining about it more often. We've been trusting the formula for 6 years now and nothing drastic has gotten by. Other than Brad saying that a couple dils are undercosted like pinned down its pretty much been A-OK.
1. How is Pinned Down undercosted? The empirical data suggests this is not the case.

2. I do complain more often- just not necessarily open for everyone to hear.

It depends what you mean by "A-OK". If by "A-OK" you mean that there have been no broken game-defining dilemmas, then, by and large, you are right- the formula, has more or less, done its job. On the other hand, there are plenty of examples where the formula has failed- just consider a dilemma in your binder you never play- chances are that dilemma is overcosted by about 1 (or in some cases 2, and in rare cases, 3)

To be honest, one reason I do not trust the formula is because way back when they said that according to there magical formula, one of the most cost-effective [NA] personnel was... this guy. I think that is plenty good reason not to trust the formula.

If the formula was really so accurate and so magical, then there would have never have been any need to focus so much on cost as a mechanic.

In all seriousness, all I am asking is to appropriately playtest the card, and I really do not understand why everyone is so against it.
User avatar
 
By charlie
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Grand Nagus
#16191
We currently have 3 (that I am fully aware of) dilemmas that are under costed, Pinned Down, Personnel Duty and Tactical Disadvantage (very harsh dilemma) and none of these have "ruined" the game. 2 of them are [S] and the other is [D] . If we get a [P] that is a little low, then it may only help to even out what we already have in the game. If it seems to be a problem, I am sure that there will be a way to alter its cost or game playing ability during play-testing.
User avatar
 
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Socialite
#16223
MilesStuntDouble wrote: 1. How is Pinned Down undercosted? The empirical data suggests this is not the case.
Notice how i said that its BRADS OPINION. Its not my opinion.
2. I do complain more often- just not necessarily open for everyone to hear.
I believe it.
In all seriousness, all I am asking is to appropriately playtest the card, and I really do not understand why everyone is so against it.
Really? Cuz i swore i heard "This dilemma costs too much" as the first thing out of your mouth. That was a very conclusory statement and only LATER did you say it should be costed lower and playtested. We disagree with your opinion that its currently undercosted - not that playtesting is needed.
 
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#16264
charlie wrote:We currently have 3 (that I am fully aware of) dilemmas that are under costed, Pinned Down, Personnel Duty and Tactical Disadvantage (very harsh dilemma) and none of these have "ruined" the game. 2 of them are [S] and the other is [D] . If we get a [P] that is a little low, then it may only help to even out what we already have in the game. If it seems to be a problem, I am sure that there will be a way to alter its cost or game playing ability during play-testing.
To add to your list, there are a few other dilemmas that are severely undercosted:

[D] Hard Time
[D] An Issue of Trust

I still do not understand how Pinned Down is undercosted? The empircal data clearly shows otherwise. If there is some other reasoning behind why 2 for a random stop is cheap, let me know.


The main reason we have not any "disasters" is because typically, one dilemma cannot be used over and over. So if a dilemma is undercosted (say by 1 or 2), no one is able to abuse it to gain a significant advantage.

I do think certain dilemmas have more of an impact of the game than most people realize- in particular- why [Bor] keep on winning.
Really? Cuz i swore i heard "This dilemma costs too much" as the first thing out of your mouth. That was a very conclusory statement and only LATER did you say it should be costed lower and playtested. We disagree with your opinion that its currently undercosted - not that playtesting is needed.
I said "Am I the only one that thinks 2 is a bit high?". I never made a conclusive statement- simply making a case why I think it may be the case.

And why is playtesting not needed?

One key question to assigning Consume Me!'s cost is how many consume dilemmas (more precisely, what proportion) would you play with Consume Me!?
User avatar
 
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#16284
I think:
a) a step should have been "space, planet, or dual", as it is an important part of the dilemma, and there does seem to be ample interest in it;
and
b) the "secret formula" should be released - what benefit is there in hiding it anymore? (I'm actually surprised that no-one has reverse-engineered it yet). Would make discussions about cost a lot more productive if we knew why the number was picked in the first place.
User avatar
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#16308
AllenGould wrote:I think:
a) a step should have been "space, planet, or dual", as it is an important part of the dilemma, and there does seem to be ample interest in it;
and
b) the "secret formula" should be released - what benefit is there in hiding it anymore? (I'm actually surprised that no-one has reverse-engineered it yet). Would make discussions about cost a lot more productive if we knew why the number was picked in the first place.
Well Charlie, based on my arguments and sufficient interest, has already agreed that this vote concerning the dilemma type will take place. As for myself, I'm satisfied with that and am willing to let the matter rest... as that is the topic I intended to discuss when I created this thread, and it has been addressed fully. In the mean time, this discussion has derailed onto the topic of costing the dilemma.

On that subject, I do not believe that the so-called "secret" costing formula should be made public knowledge. Although the general community has been givien a unique opportunity to participate in designing this card, the total future game design of STCCG does not now rest upon public review. The core design principles of the game still rest with the designers. Since the specific game mechanics of this dilemma do not exist in a completely unambiguous precedent, and therefor new elements are being added to this costing formula in the creation of this new dilemma. This is a task, as it has always been, of the designers alone based on there personel experience in designing (and in Brad's case, creating) the game in question. Of course these new costing principles should be adequately play-tested; I don't think anyone here is, or has, ever argued otherwise. Any claims that the dilemma is unambiguously under-, or over-costed are baseless in the absence of actual playtest data. If Brad would like to illuminate us on the designers' reasoning for costing the dilemma, that would be another matter to discuss, but I feel he is not obligated to do so in any way.

Therefore, I suggest that this discussion either come to a end or moved to a new thread dedicated to actual topic of the dilemma's costing (not type).

When a ship is destroyed, then Recovered used, a[…]

What's Wrong with Achievements?

Yes, doesn't make sense. If it has to stay[…]

If I remember right, he had 3 scattered throughout[…]

Is that dude with the funny hat dropping Star Wars[…]