Metronome | Metronome (Lucky! Series)

[joebob777]

@doublecross sorry for the double posting but i must reply to that example of your hobo
the box itself would be worth $(500+1)/2 but the game you are describing is pick a box and see what is under, that you have to pay for, or the outcome of what you pick is worth either $500 or $1
in a random card, if we have 2 effects worth 4 and 1, then the card is worth 2.5, but the outcome is worth either 1 or 4, that is what random is in terms of your story

[OldTrees]

Are you trying to tell me that choosing one of several effects at random doesn't decrease the utility of the card?
Imagine you are a starving hobo.
You need food to survive.
Say there is a box, that has a 50% chance of having a burger that costs 1$, and 50% chance of having a bottle of perfume that would cost 500$ in a store.
There is no way that he would say that averaging the costs of the two would be a fair cost for buying the box, since he needs 1 of the effects, and not the other.
He would not say it was worth $(500 +1 )/2
It is the same case here.
If you need another card, then paying 1 for a 50% chance of a card, in not as useful as paying 2 and guaranteeing a card.

When you bring $ into the equation it gets a lot more complicated but I will sit down and explain the economics if you desire. Short version is that the rational person would value it at (500+1)/2. The rational starving person is different than the rational person due to a different diminishing benefit curve.
In laymans terms the value of the possibilities are not the same between a starving and a non starving person.

[doublecross]

A rational person would not value it at that price if they had no way of re-selling the perfume before dying of starvation.

THAT is the point I was trying to illustrate. The value if you were dealing with a market says "sure, averages work.", but the person who starves to death if they get the wrong effect would disagree.

EDIT: I use so many enters because I like to separate my thoughts at a logical break.

I use periods to prevent run-on sentences, but I tend to use carriage returns much as someone would use a period normally, to represent when an idea is fully ended, and the next one is about to being.

[joebob777]

well are we talking life or death here? that is a completely different situation from an online card game

[OldTrees]

A rational person would not value it at that price if they had no way of re-selling the perfume before dying of starvation.

THAT is the point I was trying to illustrate. The value if you were dealing with a market says "sure, averages work.", but the person who starves to death if they get the wrong effect would disagree.

So you admit to knowing that it was only worth 50c to the rational starving person due to his valuing the perfume at 0?

The average value  (50c) is in this case equal to the average of values ($1 and $0[the $500 perfume is worthless to the starving person])

[doublecross]

I do agree with that,

You may think you have sprung a logical trap for me, sir, but lets wait and see.

[Uppercut]

50 cents to smell pretty or to have a burger? I'm in.

[OldTrees]

I do agree with that,

You may think you have sprung a logical trap for me, sir, but lets wait and see.

The logical "trap" was me describing better that you look at the actual values instead of the market prices.
Say an eccentric was offered the same deal but saw that the perfume happened to very valuable to him so much that he would value it at $100,000 but valued the $1 as next to nothing since he already had lots of money. In this case it would be rational for him to pay $(100,000+0)/2 for the chance that the prefume.

[doublecross]

Right. What you just stated is actually the point I wanted to make.



The average you calculated earlier is like the market example. The average is based on what *somebody* would be willing to pay for each effect.


However, the eccentric and the hobo both only want one of the effects, so they should only calculate that into the average, counting the other as worthless (even though someone else would pay for it)



Thus, the way of calculating appropriate cost based on an average is only valid under the assumption that one would always have a use for both effects.


If either effect is not wanted in a given scenario, or is wanted much less (for instance if they have a chimera, you want rewind, not draw a card), then the average that assumes full utility for both would be too expensive.


This is why there should be a mild reduction in price for randomness. This reduction would account for the possiblity that a given player might be a hobo, or might be an eccentric.


EDIT: The point I am making is that the average would be a fair cost if everyone needed every effect at every time. If even one effect is less useful (as will often be the case), then averaging in the prices for relatively useless effects will unfairly increase the price.


Going based one something like 80% of the average would be much closer to being fair.

[Werdbooty]

Okay, I'm just gonna toss in right here and say something right quick. You'll have to bear with me, as I'm kind of drunk right now and gritting my teeth through a 'girl's night', courtesy of my girlfriend. I probably should've gone to the bar, on retrospect. Anyway, I'll be reviewing this tomorrow, most likely with a headache. I'm happy so much discussion has been generated by these cards tho

Here goes: who said anything about precog?

Thought it might be important to mention that. Have a great night guys.

[OldTrees]

Thus, the way of calculating appropriate cost based on an average is only valid under the assumption that one would always have a use for both effects.

If they do not want both effects then they don't use the card in their deck. This seems obvious enough that I am sure that I am not understanding all of what you meant.
PS: please cut down on the lines between paragraphs.

[doublecross]

I will try and cut down on the lines.
They would put the card in the deck, because they know that both possibilities are sometimes useful. This however, does not guarantee that at every moment, both effects would be useful. However, if you consider the chimera example, it can become clear that you don't always have equal utility for both effects.
Let me use the example of a card that is already in the game. Mutation. You don't put mutation in your deck because you have a use for every possible outcome of the mutation. You have it because you know that *some* of its possible effects are likely to be useful.

I bet if you were to try and calculate your average, taking into account the cost of creating every possible mutant, stats and abilities included, you would find that the average is more than what is written on the card.     However, mutation is balanced, because you don't always need every outcome, and thus certain outcomes are more or less worthless during the true calculation.