Random Effects

[doublecross]

Right. However, the point still stands that chaos power is a non-example.
I would say that this is because randomness should only ever decrease cost.
This is because being able to choose an effect is always more valuable than not being able to choose.


Being able to choose between A or B should, logically, always be more valuable than being informed that the computer will choose for you.

[joebob777]

ok now that we have that cleared up, i think we can all agree that we should section random effects together so that we can better determine the cost decrease, and for that, we need to think of all possible sections
NOTE: i am not talking specifically about chaos seed/power but about random cards in general

[OldTrees]

Right. However, the point still stands that chaos power is a non-example.
I would say that this is because randomness should only ever decrease cost.
This is because being able to choose an effect is always more valuable than not being able to choose.

Being able to choose between A or B should, logically, always be more valuable than being informed that the computer will choose for you.

Good point but is the increase in value due to choice always >.5 quanta? I would claim that it typically is not unless wasteful targeting occurs.

@joebob
What type of random card should we talk about first?
Random between two beneficial options? Random target? Random between conflicting options?

[doublecross]

Well, the sectioning will only ever work as an approximation.


Here is the reason why (several examples)
1 damage vs. 2 damage  Equal utility for a 1 HP creature, unequal utility for a 2 HP creature
Healing 10 HP vs. Healing 20HP   Equal utility at 90HP, unequal utility at 80HP.

Need I go on?
Trust me that the uniqueness of these abilities means that the grouping will help us only to the point of being a useful approximation. We are not going to produce a formula that has mathematical reasoning behind it.

We can figure out one that would be a useful guide, but it will still have to be adjusted for a given scenario.

EDIT: Not necessarily over .5 quanta. Like I said, this will ultimately have to be a case by case thing.   However, I was arguing the mathematical principle behind it, which says there should be some sort of decrease. Whether or not that gets nullified by rounding was not part of my original consideration

[joebob777]

well we're going to have to get as close to the best case guide as we can because we wont always be able to judge stuff like 1 vs 2 damage on a 1 or 2 hp creature

[doublecross]

@joebob777
If we are making an approximation, I rather liked your original approximation back on Wish|Wish.


Of course, each card should be re-balanced, but this can still be a useful tool.

[joebob777]

Right. However, the point still stands that chaos power is a non-example.
I would say that this is because randomness should only ever decrease cost.
This is because being able to choose an effect is always more valuable than not being able to choose.

Being able to choose between A or B should, logically, always be more valuable than being informed that the computer will choose for you.

Good point but is the increase in value due to choice always >.5 quanta? I would claim that it typically is not unless wasteful targeting occurs.

@joebob
What type of random card should we talk about first?
Random between two beneficial options? Random target? Random between conflicting options?

what we should talk about is sectioning random cards in general, like if it does random cc then section that into heavy cc, mid cc, and low cc we keep going until we run out of sections and then we can judge how much we reduce cost for randomness

[joebob777]

@joebob777
If we are making an approximation, I rather liked your original approximation back on Wish|Wish.


Of course, each card should be re-balanced, but this can still be a useful tool.

i liked that aproximation too but to make a more acurate aproximation, we need to section randomness as you hinted in wish

[OldTrees]

How about this:
-0(+0): Few rare cases of decreased (or increased) value
-1(+1): Some occasional cases of decreased (or increased) value
-2(+2): Lots or frequent cases of decreased (or increased) value

-0: Few options
-1: A handful of categorically different options
-2: Random assortment of options

[doublecross]

I still have yet to be convinced that the value would ever increase due to randomness.


I feel it would be much clearer without the (or increase) and the (+number)

[joebob777]

we could go by that, so down to -4 and up to +2 if we can find a case like that

[joebob777]

I still have yet to be convinced that the value would ever increase due to randomness.


I feel it would be much clearer without the (or increase) and the (+number)

this is a backup just in case we ever run across something random that increases value