Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)S
Posts
40
Comments
1000
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • I don't see it yet, please help me out. Maybe it helps if you can find a specific example.

    Can you describe a scenario how an asshole could game that system?

    Generally I think MTG is probably the most capitalism-ruined game. It annoyed me much when starting to play as a teenager. Whenever a friend upgraded their deck, others were kind of forced to spend money as well. Because the rich guy had access to all the powerful cards (= relatively low mana cost for their effect / strong effect for their CMC). Isn't that exactly what a balancing approach would alleviate? Everyone has access to all cards, and all cards receive a CMC which matches how much players value it.

  • You're right, this would be very unpractical for analogue play. I thought it has to be digital. But then another person in this post pointed out that Penny Dreadful is a thing, which seems to work with printed cards, although it has it's banlist change from season to season. Granted, checking what is banned/legal (and modifying your deck accordingly) is much simpler than checking each mana cost.

    I'm not a fan of capitalism, it was just a metaphor to convey they mechanic. Now that I think closer about this, they even differ in that. I did not have "supply and demand" in mind, since the supply in a digital TCG is essentially infinite. It's more about rating cards based on their popularity, whereas popular items in capitalism can be dirt cheap (e.g. tap water). One of the other major differences is that in capitalism, people can reinvest their capital to gain more capital. I don't see how that could be a thing in 'my' idea. But the system would need some protection against deliberate manipulationg. Yet another person proposed a solution to this; only monitor tournament decks.

  • seasonal patches like a video game’s balance

    That makes much more sense, yes.

    Your other thoughts are also good and welcome. Yeah, tracking what cards tournament players include is probably sufficient!

  • Are you familiar with the MTGO format Penny Dreadful?

    I was not, thanks! Haha, yes, that is a pretty good implementation of the core idea, with very little overhead. It was funny to read about the implications this can have on real world market prices.

    Spending (the equivalent of) 0.942 of a mana on something isn’t functionally different in almost all cases from spending 1 mana on it.

    You're right, it does not work so well with the current mana system. Because you still bring whole numbers of lands into play. When those lands produce 1000 mana, you still have either 1000 or 2000 mana, so the 0s are mostly redundant. It would still make a difference for carts which have a significant margin (so that you can play 3 unpopular cards for the cost of 2 regular, or 2 popular for the cost of 3 regular). But for small changes, as you say, it wouldn’t functionally change much.

    I like the fine granularity of the cost-balancing approach. Though the binary ban/legalize mechanic of Penny Dreadful might be accurate enough.

  • Update: Casting Doppelgang with Flash and Casualty 2 is fun :D

    I removed [[Smogbelcher Chariot]] and [[Blooming Cactusfolk]], since they were too situational/slow. Still climbing the ladder ...

  • Alright, thanks! I think I understand where you're coming from, and can relate. I'm an ex-Christian, although I guess for ex-Muslims this process is a whole other beast.

    And yes, I know exactly what you mean about culture and critique - as an leftwing, anti-theist leaning atheist, I often have to cringe about my peers. It feels like false romanticizing, like we did with native americans, or other falsly understood cultures. So many things which I despise in fascism are also present in strict Christianity and strict Islam. Although luckily, very few people take their religion seriously here. So our religious nutjobs are a fringe minority and can mostly be ignored.

    Refugees welcome, but I hate it when they try to establish religio-fascist areas here, spewing hate and all their nonsense, occasionally killing someone. I mean, if you want to live like that, go back. If you like our way, be welcome.

    Yeah, a sensitive topic which can easily trigger people. I try not to care about the boxes they try to put me in. And I absolutely love the freedom of speech we have here. I don't want that be ruined by migrants who think they speak for Allah, nor by leftists who think every minority shares their values. Like I was one of them. In my youth, with coloured hair and ragged clothes, I was regularly beaten up by (almost exclusively) migrants. Created quite some cognitive dissonance, some effort to justify their deeds, like worse socioeconomic status blabla. Truth is, many people are quite "conservative", naturally more so in less liberal countries of origin. And still, I vote and speak for open borders. Our society must find better ways than building walls. This issue is challenging European core values, with at least two ways to erode the values; we can lose them by allowing hostile subcultures to grow, or we can lose them by closing us off to the outside.

    Good lord, 6 years. Poor Aisha. I guess my brain was happy to forget that detail.

    So thanks again for this exchange. Stay safe.

  • Other person.

    I think there are stories in the Quran or the other important texts (Hadid?) about their prophet marrying a 9yo. Although I've witnessed controversy around her exact age amongst people in /r/DebateReligion. Like some said it wasn't too bad, she was almost 14 or so.

    Now your turn, what do you think? And why did you want them not to google?

  • the design crime with Nadu was the fear of shipping a bad card after nerfing the card.

    That's an excellent point. Because, put that way, what's so bad about shipping a bad card? People will read it once and never look at it again. Like most cards in a set. So what? On the other hand, making it too strong has grave consequences.

    I think the feature creep is caused mostly by greed on both sides; company and players. Company wants to make more money, so needs incentive for players to keep buying. Players want ever stronger cards, and company delivers. Like you can't make the new set weaker than the previous, because of sales.

  • “stop printing undercosted legends with as many abilities as you can jam into a text box”

    So much this. So often I come across a card. Start to read. Nice! Continue reading. Whoa, nice! And then I'm only half through.

    I then like to ask myself if this card would still be nice if it had less/weaker features. And then I'm shaking my head again, going AngryVideoGameNerd "What were they thinking!?".

    Examples:

    • [The End]. Exiling any number of copies is strong on it's own, doesn't have to become cheaper at low life.
    • [Ocelot Pride]. Not sure if it needs first strike. It definitely does not need the extra with the City's Blessing.

    I feel there are much better examples, but I wanted to stop thinking about it.

  • this just misses every one of the complaints for me. He’s basically saying “this is hard, I’ve been doing this for 30 years, trust us”

    I don't know what exactly these complaints are, but I also stumbled over this passage. Sure, making magic is hard and you cannot test everything in such a complex system.

    It's also clear that there has to be a last day for the changes, and thus some changes will be late. Although, I argue, if you keep making changes in the last 5 minutes, that probably hints at your testing period being too short.

    It's not a given that "we only have so much time". It's an economic decision made by management; how much they value testing. They surely try to strike a balance between testing enough and making the most profit. Which is the whole point of this comment.

    Despite him claiming otherwise, of course a different, more qualtiy-focussed approach is possible. For example, one rather extreme version would be "we only release a set after we found nothing worth changing for 3 consecutive months in testing", just to illustrate the range of possibilities. One can move fast and break things, or be very cautios but move slower.

    Though I'd rather have a profit-oriented MTG with too little testing than a bankrupt; or no MTG at all, although that's probably a false dichotomy.

  • Quality comment, well said.

    I'm not sure (take that literally, please) wether both causes deserve to be treated as equals, but I can very much vibe with the general spirit of your comment. That's what I had in mind when writing the last paragraph of my previous comment.

  • Reading the article, it somehow baffled me how much work and thought they actually put into this. Like it mentions meetings, wow.

    For many new cards, I get the feeling they really don't mind making them too strong. Similar thoughts when I look at the fanbase.

    I (also) enjoyed the game when playing a 3/3 bear on turn 3 was nice. Now you sort of have to expect an indestructible hexproof creature with maybe even more abilities, for 2 mana, to be deemed playable.

    Rambling off, sorry thanks.

    By which criterias/standards do they make these cards, and evaluate later wether they need to be banned or not?

  • Hey, I know a pretty similar bus stop in Hamburg, Germany: https://maps.app.goo.gl/SMa5unXew4uAfVtPA

    Can confirm, it sucks to wait there. Hard to reach (always tempting to risk your life for catching the bus), noisy, stinky, plus ours has bicyclists zooming through the isle.

  • To optimize the intersection for car traffic. Or maybe rather to minimize signal wait times.

    If pedestrians could take the shortest path, it would roughly double the size of the intersection in both width and height. Which then requires clearing times on each signal pass to be longer. Which ultimately makes everybody wait longer at the intersection, including pedestrians.

    So, that is one possible explanation. I guess you didn't really ask for one, and maybe I should also add that it's just that; an explanation, not a justification.

  • This is like if Hezbollah bombed Yoav Gallant in Tel Aviv. And then Hezbollah starts bombing israeli airports “pre-emptively” because “an israeli attack” (retaliation) is coming.

    Yes, exactly. They had good reasons to assume the other side is angry and might do something violent, because they themselves just did something very violent to them! So to protect themselves, they deprive their opponents of means of retaliation. Pre-empting the retaliation.

    Hitting someone and then hitting them again because you expect them to hit back does not seem very " self defensy" or “pre-emptive” te me.

    I get you. I would totally agree if this was about a school dispute. However in war, there are a number of things which can be done in self defense or to pre-empt an enemy attack which might seem counterintuitive at first, like for example destroying your own infrastructure, or investing in weapons with the intent to never use them.

    In war, an attacker can very well attack again to defend themselves and/or to pre-empt the enemy reaction.

    If you could hire one of two generals to protect your country; one which considers pre-emptive follow-up attacks and one who would rather let the other side strike back because it seems fair, who would you hire?

  • You expect a military force to sit tight, not move, not shoot, while they know the enemy is about to attack?

    Because, the enemy "is defending itself"?

    I'd love to hear that rally speech with which you would motivate your soldiers to just eat incoming rockets without using the tools they have to prevent being attacked.

  • The strikes are only pre-emptive if we put on white-nationalism glasses and take away Lebanon’s right to defend itself. Israel attacked Beirut first.

    I guess as always with language, there are many possible interpretations. Yours is one, that's right.

    To me, it came somewhat surprising to see you connected "pre-emptive" to moral judgements, or to the question who attacked "first" (which is a controversial and potentially infinite topic to track the actual honest true 'first' origin).

    Another interpretation is just military doctrine. The best defense is a good offense. Who cares who started the fight.

    In this interpretation, the IDF felt there might be an attack incoming, and prevented it's adversary from doing so by striking first.

    Much like Hezbollah (or any other military force) would gladly pre-emptively strike their foe to protect their own troops. Doesn't say anything about who started the overall conflict or even who's right.

    You still have a point; by highlighting the reasons behind the strike, and painting it as a protective measure, it probably makes it easier for the reader to sympathize.

  • As a german, I feel the right side is much more alien to me than the left side (split at "Start here").

    Is that circumstancial, or does it reflect some linguistic truth? Like, are the languages on the left one family, and the ones on the right another family, or however linguistic taxonomy would call that?

    Maybe it's just that the left side includes all the germanic languages, so that feels more familiar. There are also languages on the left side where I have no clue what or where that might be. But much more so on the right side.

  • My first two matches (historic ranked bo1) after the update resulted in a crash, before the match started. Later everything was fine.