Guest posts by Chinook

1

Religion / Re: IQ vs. Religiosity

« on: May 03, 2010, 07:21:00 pm »

Lets say you get sick. Do you trust a doctor, or some random forum guy?

False dilemma.
I don't have to decide that I will always listen to a doctor, I'm free to listen to each and decide that the doctor has presented the best case in each instance. 
I expect that in the vast majority of the cases, the doctor is who I will most likely choose to trust, but I will not blindly follow him simply because he is a doctor.  Doctors can make mistakes or even disagree with each other.

If I feel a doctor or a scientist or a lawyer or any professional has made an error, I won't hesitate to call them on it because of their status.

2

Religion / Re: IQ vs. Religiosity

« on: April 29, 2010, 05:10:46 pm »

I'm not sure what you mean but the study didn't compare different countries. It was done independently in each country, and in each country there was a clear correlation between IQ and Religiosity.

The study was done independently in each country and then the graph compares the results of those countries to other countries.
It is absolutely comparing different countries as presented.

Hm.. I think what everyone needs to realize here is that this study wasn't done by a bunch of kids who don't know what they are doing. It was done by professionals who work with statistics and probably know 10 times more about that subject than anyone else here. I'm not saying they can't be wrong, or that the data gathering method cannot be wrong, but it's very unlikely.

Ask yourself this. Who do you trust more?

A) A published scientific study made by real scientist
B) A random person on the internet who knows better

You don't know who is reading here, it is entirely possible that someone could have 10 times more knowledge on the topic than the persons running this study.

Real scientists make mistakes and omissions but other real scientists review their work and often point out those mistakes. A real scientist isn't worried about being trusted as a scientist, they are confident that their work will stand on its own.

3

Religion / Re: IQ vs. Religiosity

« on: April 28, 2010, 07:29:02 pm »

does this study fail somehow?

Discuss.

Study fails because it has not even attempted to correct for other factors that may be far more important to either the IQ or Religiosity reported.

There are many factors that differ between Canada and The Ivory Coast beyond these two isolated data points so no causation can be determined.

4

In-game Troubleshooting / Disconnected, Progress Lost, NOT Saved

« on: April 16, 2010, 06:03:13 pm »

Why do I continually get his??

I can refresh the page and log in just fine, but I lose progress on a regular basis.

Any ideas why?

5

General Discussion / What the game mechanics should be

« on: December 15, 2009, 10:10:29 pm »

Immaterial creatures aren't only unable to be targeted, they are also immune to damage and infection. This is why RoF doesn't (and shouldn't) affect them.

What he said.

Man, I cannot BELIEVE that so many people want Rain of Fire to hit and an IMMATERIAL creature, who is basically a freaking ghost.

Just think about it. If you try to aim the creature with a Fire Bolt, you are not successful. But if you make fire drop from the sky (Rain of Fire), suddenly it hits the creature! Wtf kind of twisted logic is that?

Seems like the only way to hit an immaterial creature (a ghost) is the pretend like you are not trying to hit him.

Forget the word "untargetable" in the card. The creature is IMMATERIAL, a ghost. Nothing can hit him. Nothing. If you want to take down a creature like that you need to call Ghostbusters.

Why would we forget the word "Untargetable"? It's right there. On the card. It has a specific meaning that everyone understands.
Besides, if they are going to be immaterial in the logical sense then we might as well ignore them since immaterial things can't do damage, logically.

Mizzle has pointed out that Immaterial creatures actually have 3 abilities, only one is actually stated. They cannot be targetted, they are immune to damage and they are immune to Infection. If we're discussing what game mechanics "should" be, that is something that should not be. Better mechanics would be 3 defined abilities and if there's good reason to grant all 3 to a creature then go for it, but I would think that would not be the best call.

6

General Discussion / What the game mechanics should be

« on: December 15, 2009, 10:10:29 pm »

But then how do you explain the fact that immaterial creatures are unaffected by Fire Shield? This is the only shield that doesn't prevent damage whose effect is ignored by immaterial creatures.

I'd explain it as an example of bad mechanics. There's no reason why the ability to be Untargettable should prevent damage from a source you walk into.

Clearly, Immaterial creatures are currently immune to damage in addition to also being Untargettable, do you like it that way?

7

General Discussion / What the game mechanics should be

« on: December 15, 2009, 10:10:29 pm »

Why would I focus on the card itself and how it functions????
I know what the card does, I know how it functions.

Perhaps you've forgotten what the thread is about in your hysterical need to insult people. I'm not crying about anything, I'm talking about what the game mechanics should be.

8

General Discussion / What the game mechanics should be

« on: December 15, 2009, 10:10:28 pm »

Cards with no answer just aren't fun.

Yep, you clearly have this MtG way of looking at Elements.

There are many "answers" to immortal creatures.
- Kill the opponent faster than he kills you
- Shields
- Healing
- Sundial
etc.

Just because you cannot kill immortal characters doesn't mean there are no "answers" to those cards. Winner is not the player who has more creatures, winner is the player who kills the other player.

No, I don't "clearly" have a M:TG way of looking at anything. M:TG is one of dozens of card based games I played before even beginning to try any of the now many online "card" games so I have no idea why you have fixated on it, other than it is probably the best known\most popular.

None of your "answers" to Immortal creatures are actual answers, they are work arounds.
If for example, "kill the opponent faster than he kills you" was an acceptable design element, then we could simply create solitaire decks with no interaction and simply clock out who kills on the fastest round.
It can be done, but we'd all soon get bored of that.

If we're giving each other advice on how to deal with an Immortal deck, then your answer is perfect, but if we're discussing the design of the game, your answer is sorely lacking.
Perhaps you are the minority though that enjoys a dynamic that has no counter-measure, and if so, we'll have to agree to disagree.

9

General Discussion / What the game mechanics should be

« on: December 15, 2009, 10:10:28 pm »

Why are immaterial creatures a problem?

I've seen a lot of new players always complain about immaterial creatures but that is because they come from MtG and don't yet understand that having immaterial creatures is not an automatic win. If immaterial creatures were overpowered, everyone would have either them or Anubis. Right now that is not the case.

There's no answer to a weapon with Protect Artifact either (not even Sundial stops that) which is basically the same as having an immaterial creatures, but I don't see people complaining about that. If we get something that counters immaterial creatures, do we also get something that counters Protect Artifact?

Yes, immaterial creatures are immune to everything but that's the whole point!

Cards with no answer just aren't fun.
Protect Artifact partially avoids that because it must combo with another card to set up the same situation.

I do like the idea of a board clearing mechanism for creatures or permanents though.

10

General Discussion / What the game mechanics should be

« on: December 15, 2009, 10:10:28 pm »

Getting back to original topic.. I think the main problem with this poll is that different users have different motivations for choosing their vote.

Group 1
Users who vote based on what would benefit current game balance most.

Group 2
Users who vote based on what makes sense the most.


While we have these two groups, we unfortunately won't get much good data out of this poll. Original question should have had a disclaimer "do not take game balance into consideration when taking your vote", or "take your vote based on what would benefit the game balance most".

I personally belong to group 2, and I think this is how all changes should be made:

1. Change cards so that they make sense (for example nothing physical can hit immaterial creatures).
2. Buff/nerf cards so that you can correct the possible new unbalance that occurred after doing step #1.

I don't think those are discreet groups. I always consider both what makes sense and how that impacts game balance when looking at game dynamics. Besides, using what makes sense to one person as a starting point will not always make sense to the next person though.

11

General Discussion / What the game mechanics should be

« on: December 15, 2009, 10:10:28 pm »

You cannot just take words, give them your own meaning, and then claim you are right. If I take a ball in my hand and call it a horse (that's how I describe this particular round object), am I right?

You can bash Wikipedia all you want (it's the "cool" thing to do) but that doesn't change the fact that Wikipedia is right. The definition in Wikipedia is a perfect way to distinguish between real-time and turn-based games.

Are you cognizant of how condescending you are whether you are right, wrong or irrelevant?

I didn't make my own meaning, no one was confused about the meaning of the words. You launched an irrelevant tangental argument on the definitions. In retrospect, I should have ignored it rather than mocking it, but it's done.

Using your logic all games are both real-time and turn-based.

Just because one bird is a duck does not make all birds ducks.
Using my logic does not make Chess both real time and turn based.
Your insistence on a false dichotomy by forcing all games to be either real time or turn based won't change the fact that Baseball is also both turn based AND real time.

12

General Discussion / What the game mechanics should be

« on: December 15, 2009, 10:10:28 pm »

What he said might sound like it makes sense but unfortunately it's false. MtG is not both turn-based and real-time. That's not how you use those terms when talking about games.

Bolding the word false doesn't actually make it false.
That is how I use those terms when talking about games.

Everyone who is confused, please read this Wikipedia article on Time-keeping systems in games (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-keeping_systems_in_games).

I'm not confused and I didn't realise that Wikipedia was the authority we had agreed on, excuse me a moment while I "fix" Wikipedia...

It has very clear definitions on both real-time and turn-based.

real-time = players may act at any moment.
turn-based = players are allowed a period of analysis before committing to a game action.

Now which of these two you guys think is closer to MtG?

See, here's the thing, you obviously know that it is both, simply by trying to force others to decide which one it is "closer to" demonstrates how M:TG does in fact exist in both paradigms.
Having played the game for years, it is easy for me to declaratively state that at times, M:TG is turn-based, while at other moments it is real time.

If it was clearly one or the other, this entire discussion wouldn't be happening.

See, we ALL get to be right.