 |
| Autor |
Nachricht |
Ruwenzori
Gott der eindeutigen Zweideutigkeit
Alter: 59
Anmeldungsdatum: 23.11.2004
Beiträge: 3642
Wohnort: Niederrhein
|
|
| Dearlove hat folgendes geschrieben: |
| Ruwenzori hat folgendes geschrieben: |
If you are among the PC Game testers, you can also take the file ..\de\madwer\bluemoon\Sonderfunktion.class (but you will have to strip the control chars)
|
Two things: (a) I'm not sure where that file is being referenced from, and (b) do you mean the CardTable by PC Game, or something else? |
(a) it is inside the jar file of the PC Game project, at the moment only accessible to beta testers (and I believe, Lachwurzn is one of them).
(b) sth else, a private fans project, to be found at the (German) "PC Spiel" section of the forum.
|
|
|
|
_________________
Gourmet-Tipp: Spinat schmeckt am besten, wenn man ihn kurz vor dem Verzehr durch ein saftiges Steak ersetzt!
|
|
   |
     |
|
Ruwenzori
Gott der eindeutigen Zweideutigkeit
Alter: 59
Anmeldungsdatum: 23.11.2004
Beiträge: 3642
Wohnort: Niederrhein
|
|
2 more errors found.
My flip code failed to flip the leader texts
"Cards/Karten" => "Karten/Cards"
and in the last issue of CT there is an incorrect end of the line:
card "/bluemoon/Terrah Charakter/terrah17" "Silento Sol\n\nCharakter/Character\n\n[0F] 0E\n\nTerrah 17 T\n1 Mond/Moon" #0000 1
while #000 is the correct ending. But I dont know what difference this makes. Only noticed it while programming.
|
|
|
|
_________________
Gourmet-Tipp: Spinat schmeckt am besten, wenn man ihn kurz vor dem Verzehr durch ein saftiges Steak ersetzt!
|
|
| |
|
|
Ruwenzori
Gott der eindeutigen Zweideutigkeit
Alter: 59
Anmeldungsdatum: 23.11.2004
Beiträge: 3642
Wohnort: Niederrhein
|
|
| Is there anybody aware of a machine readable version of the cards Flavour Texts?
|
|
|
|
_________________
Gourmet-Tipp: Spinat schmeckt am besten, wenn man ihn kurz vor dem Verzehr durch ein saftiges Steak ersetzt!
|
|
| |
|
|
Dearlove
Blue Moon Playtester
Anmeldungsdatum: 22.03.2004
Beiträge: 258
|
|
| Ruwenzori hat folgendes geschrieben: |
Is there anybody aware of a machine readable version of the cards Flavour Texts?
|
One of my usual unhelpful comments: I have one (Reiner's official one - Excel spreadsheet of all card details if anyone is interested in what tool is used) but I'm afraid it's not available. For a start it has all the unpublished cards on it. The one I have is English only too, although obviously somewhere there's a German language version.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
Lachwurzn
Gott der Signaturen
Alter: 60
Anmeldungsdatum: 14.07.2004
Beiträge: 4055
Wohnort: Wien
|
|
| Dearlove hat folgendes geschrieben: |
| I have one (Reiner's official one - Excel spreadsheet of all card details if anyone is interested in what tool is used) |
Not that you would answer it, but is the reason for using a spreadsheet that it also contains certain mathematical values for each card ? I always wondered whether there is a strict mathematical model that the BlueMoon card system is based upon...
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Dearlove
Blue Moon Playtester
Anmeldungsdatum: 22.03.2004
Beiträge: 258
|
|
[quote="Lachwurznquote]Not that you would answer it, but is the reason for using a spreadsheet that it also contains certain mathematical values for each card ? I always wondered whether there is a strict mathematical model that the BlueMoon card system is based upon...
[/quote]
Actually, since I don't know the answer to that one I can speculate. mainly I presume it's just a jolly handy tool, but it also allows things like total values and numbers of moons to be summed, and also has a page (which I've never checked how it was done) which counts distributions of cards (how many 6/1 cards, that sort of thing).
Now if you want an unpublished fact, once upon a time there was a more formal relationship between, say, a 5/4 and how many moons it was worth. But when playtesting revealed that the then values made some cards so that they weren't worth picking - or were picked too often - quite a few cards were revalued the relationship became less clearcut (and never was clearcut for cards with special power text).
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Lachwurzn
Gott der Signaturen
Alter: 60
Anmeldungsdatum: 14.07.2004
Beiträge: 4055
Wohnort: Wien
|
|
| Dearlove hat folgendes geschrieben: |
| Now if you want an unpublished fact, once upon a time there was a more formal relationship between, say, a 5/4 and how many moons it was worth. But when playtesting revealed that the then values made some cards so that they weren't worth picking - or were picked too often - quite a few cards were revalued the relationship became less clearcut (and never was clearcut for cards with special power text). |
This leaves two interpretations for me: either the "more formal relationship" was not perfect and it was easier to rely on heavy playtesting instead of investing into a perfect mathematical model or psychology plays an important role in picking any cards anyway.
I personally prefer the latter one as everybody seems to have his "most-loved" cards not so much for their theoretic value but based on deck preferences, card illustrations, fad, waning/waxing moon (as we have a local saying in German) or simply a very personal way to play the game at all.
But thanks for keeping us interested with little snippets of information about the game development background. It's fun to read this.. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Ruwenzori
Gott der eindeutigen Zweideutigkeit
Alter: 59
Anmeldungsdatum: 23.11.2004
Beiträge: 3642
Wohnort: Niederrhein
|
|
| @Dearlove: thank you for your comment anyway and the insight you gave. I judge it not to be useless.
|
|
|
|
_________________
Gourmet-Tipp: Spinat schmeckt am besten, wenn man ihn kurz vor dem Verzehr durch ein saftiges Steak ersetzt!
|
|
| |
|
|
Dearlove
Blue Moon Playtester
Anmeldungsdatum: 22.03.2004
Beiträge: 258
|
|
| Lachwurzn hat folgendes geschrieben: |
This leaves two interpretations for me: either the "more formal relationship" was not perfect and it was easier to rely on heavy playtesting instead of investing into a perfect mathematical model or psychology plays an important role in picking any cards anyway.
|
I don't think a perfect mathematical model would be possible even without cards with special power text. With it, no chance. That's even if you ignore psychological effects. How can you possibly decide whether, for example, a 5/3 or 4/4 is better? This depends on how often you get to play the 5/3 as a 5 or as a 3. But even then is the difference between 5 and 4 more or less significant than between 4 and 3? The game is too complicated to model (and not just slightly) so playtesting is essential. Playtesting isn't perfect of course; it probably won't actually answer the 5/3 versus 4/4 question. But if it shows them similar, then they should have similar costs (and a 5 point scale helps there, it makes marginal calls easier - they become the same).
Of course there are mathematical models that would be good enough. For example suppose we adopted the formula moons = (maximum value - 4). This (which isn't the original, I've just made it up) would give us a quite playable game (apart from the -1 moons of a 3/3 etc.) but then Aaralia-Aqua-Secunda would be the indisputably best 0 moon character (well, there are icons, but I'm ignoring them for now). This is the sort of thing that playtesting shows up. So you choose either mathematical purity, a one-off adjustment, or a new, more complicated formula, such as (maximum value - 4) + (1 if values are equal). In some senses there's no difference between the latter two. Pick any set of costs and it's possible to fit a formula to them. For example I think that the published character cards without icons or text all are fitted by
moons = maximum(0, (maximum value - 4) + (1 if if values are equal or differ by 1))
(I may be wrong, I've just tried to bodge something together. In many ways it would make my point better if I have missed something and need another term.)
And of course to start with you might as well use a simple formula, it makes a convenient starting point - and you can only test something specific, you can't test an abstraction.
Psychology is important of course, but that's another matter entirely. Of course since only a certain number of people made cost suggestions (and only one made final decisions) the existing costs certainly reflect the psychology of those people at least to some extent - probably more on special power text cards however.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Lachwurzn
Gott der Signaturen
Alter: 60
Anmeldungsdatum: 14.07.2004
Beiträge: 4055
Wohnort: Wien
|
|
Your formula is extremely interesting and seems to work pretty good for all the cards I've looked at. Would it then make sense to expand it with saying for example that for each icon (shield, retrieve, protected free, pair, gang) one should add an additional moon ?
Special power text of course is even more complicated, but I think that this could be worked out with some testing.
Please understand that this is not only very much interesting for understanding the currently exisiting official cards but even more for our "fan cards" which usually cause a lot of discussion concerning their "moon values". I would really love to expand a bit more on this subject on would be glad for any feedback or ideas that you have on it !
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Dearlove
Blue Moon Playtester
Anmeldungsdatum: 22.03.2004
Beiträge: 258
|
|
| Lachwurzn hat folgendes geschrieben: |
Your formula is extremely interesting and seems to work pretty good for all the cards I've looked at. Would it then make sense to expand it with saying for example that for each icon (shield, retrieve, protected free, pair, gang) one should add an additional moon ?
|
OK. I'm going to pretend I know nothing more than all the rest of you do and just look at the cards and see if your suggestion works. I'll start with the PAIR icon. It doesn't seem to have a fixed cost. Starting with my formula (but as I said, it's just an ad hoc formula from the cards, it's got no secret knowledge in it) how much do we pay for a PAIR icon?
On a 6/1 - 0 moons
On a 5/3 - 1 moon
On a 5/2 - 0 moons
On a 4/4 - 1 moon
On a 4/2 - 1 moon
On a 3/3 - 0 moons
Not an obvious pattern. (And if there were three or more matched, like Flit boosters?) Considering other icons, FREE is obviously anything but free, in fact clearly you need to tear up the above formula and start again. Actually we only have three FREE characters, and they have moons equal to their maximum value, but extraopolating that would be tricky. GANG again needs a new formula. Maybe you can work one out, I'll pass for now. RETRIEVE? Actually it seems to be worth 1 moon
- provided you add it before increasing to zero if negative. (I think, I may have missed something.) Shields? Not enough data points (only two I think outside mutants, and they have zero values)
Then there are boosters and supports. It would appear that for similar values, supports cost more than boosters (obviously) and boosters cost more than characters (or rather, for similar costs you get lower values). There may be ad hoc formulae to be derived, but I'll pass for now.
| Zitat: |
Special power text of course is even more complicated, but I think that this could be worked out with some testing.
|
Not a formula. Special power text is so irregular, there are no patterns to form formulae from. Of course testing is moons were decided, but card by card.
| Zitat: |
Please understand that this is not only very much interesting for understanding the currently exisiting official cards but even more for our "fan cards" which usually cause a lot of discussion concerning their "moon values". I would really love to expand a bit more on this subject on would be glad for any feedback or ideas that you have on it ! |
Here we have a problem. I don't look at fan cards. There are a few words in the FAQ on this. I'm afraid this isn't going to change. I can really only state three principles, all fairly obvious.
- Where cards can be arranged in a sequence, the moon costs should also be so, so that where a card is better than another it is not cheaper (it may be the same cost as we don't have enough dynamic range to always be greater).
- Moons are only relevant to constructed decks, so you have to construct decks to estimate costs. You want two points: that there are no cards that are "must buys" (and a minimum of "never buys" but this is less critical) and that decks with 10 important moons should be similarly strong, which means that if a card is particularly strong in one environment (other than its home deck, which is irrelevant) it has to be costed for where it is most valuable.
- Get as many opinions from people who know what they are up to as you can. But don't necessarily take a majority vote - where there's a big discrepancy, try to understand why.
Actually I have a fourth principle, but I'll hold that one for now. And beware of the final point of my second principle - you haven't seen all the environments. (Hey, I had to do that somewhere.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Lachwurzn
Gott der Signaturen
Alter: 60
Anmeldungsdatum: 14.07.2004
Beiträge: 4055
Wohnort: Wien
|
|
This is really interesting and we very much appreciate your comments and ideas on it !
| Zitat: |
| Here we have a problem. I don't look at fan cards. There are a few words in the FAQ on this. I'm afraid this isn't going to change. |
Actually, we don't expect you to do this (we fully understand and accept your approach here). It's not necessary anyway as all this can be done from a theoretical point of view and by taking a look at the official decks only. I justed wanted to explain why this discussion topic is so interesting for us...
| Zitat: |
| It would appear that for similar values, supports cost more than boosters (obviously) and boosters cost more than characters |
Agreed. No discussion about that.
| Zitat: |
RETRIEVE? Actually it seems to be worth 1 moon
- provided you add it before increasing to zero if negative. |
I have to admit that my over-simplified idea of ading a moon for each icon was derived from the RETRIEVE icon and extrapolated from there. You proved quite well that this rule is complete nonsense except for the RETRIEVE case - thanks for expanding on it.
| Zitat: |
| Actually we only have three FREE characters, and they have moons equal to their maximum value, but extraopolating that would be tricky. |
True. Given the small "sample", there is no way to have a good statistical approach on it. On the other hand, even a tricky theory is a good one as long as it works. We'll see as soon as the Aqua and Pillar appear and re-evaluate the rule then...
| Zitat: |
| Special power text is so irregular, there are no patterns to form formulae from. |
Well, you are probably right that there is no general formula for it, but nevertheless I can see certain patterns which then could be "added up" for the total "moon value" of a card...
+ a character card: seems to have a base value of 0 moons (unless higher as stated by your formula)
+ a leadership card: seems to have a base value of 1 moon
+ a booster card: seems to have a base value of 1 moon
+ an instruction that allows to discard a number of opponent's cards (or fire or earth values): seems to have a base value of 1 moon
+ an instruction which disallows to play cards of a certain type: seems to have a base value of 1 moon
+ an instruction allows me to play any number of cards of a certain type: seems to have a base value of 1 moon
+ an instruction that allows me to attract one dragon directly: seems to have a base value of 3 moons
+ an instruction to draw additional cards: seems to have a base value of 2 moons
+ an instruction to attract one additional dragon if my opponent retreats (or the opposite of it): seems to have a base value of 2 moons
+ an instruction influencing the fire or earth values of other cards: : seems to have a base value of 1 moon
etc. etc.
I may be totally wrong on this approach at all, there will be exceptions to the rules and there are for sure a number of cards that defy any rule at all, but a set of basic principles would certainly help us.
| Zitat: |
| Get as many opinions from people who know what they are up to as you can. But don't necessarily take a majority vote - where there's a big discrepancy, try to understand why. |
This is exactly what happens with the "fan cards" today. Discussion is based on people's opinion and using a non-scientific voting mechanism can usually easily have everybody agree on a certain moon value (plus/minus one, but this is statistically irrelevant and then have it decided by a single person. To make this process easier, your basic principles (and we're for sure curious about your fourth one) are certainly of help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Dearlove
Blue Moon Playtester
Anmeldungsdatum: 22.03.2004
Beiträge: 258
|
|
| Lachwurzn hat folgendes geschrieben: |
Well, you are probably right that there is no general formula for it, but nevertheless I can see certain patterns which then could be "added up" for the total "moon value" of a card...
|
It would be interesting if you could find a pattern - as it (probably, I can't actually read Reiner's mind) mostly would be finding a pattern which wasn't consciously designed in. That said there are some rules, but some are backwards. For example the Holy Dragon cards which gain a dragon (Charm, Beguile, Impress) are all 4 moons. Playtesting changes would be more likely to be to how much is discarded rather than their moons, as the 4 moons to gain a dragon is attractive.
| Zitat: |
a leadership card: seems to have a base value of 1 moon
|
May be deliberate that there are no zero cost leadership cards, or maybe there are zero cost leadership cards to come. But even the one cost leadership cards can be a bit weak.
| Zitat: |
a booster card: seems to have a base value of 1 moon
|
There are free booster cards in the Mimix deck. Actually I think these are often extremely good value in a number of decks. But not in a Khind deck.
| Zitat: |
I may be totally wrong on this approach at all, there will be exceptions to the rules and there are for sure a number of cards that defy any rule at all, but a set of basic principles would certainly help us.
|
There certainly isn't a secret document circulating with rules. I'm sure Reiner started with specific ideas, and later revaluing left some alone, modified some, and made some unrecognisable. The most obvious one which survives is the breakpoint at 2/2 for characters with text (except GANG and FREE characters, and mutants - and probably something else I've forgotten). No one actually ever spelled this out, it was just obvious, and so no one made any suggestions which broke this. (Not that many suggestions were needed, but there were a few cards which were replaced after I came in. Obviously much, much, more happened before I was involved. It's worth noting that the eight decks were all finished in all their essentials before I was involved, I just was involved in the tweaking. One of the decks was definitely too strong, for example, so it was massaged down a bit. And there were many moon changes and quite a few name changes.)
| Zitat: |
To make this process easier, your basic principles (and we're for sure curious about your fourth one) are certainly of help.
|
My fourth one is in some senses a red herring. But there are a few forthcoming cards that to explain the costs I'd need to say "this cost is as it is basically for reason X" and as reason X isn't one of my three principles I decided I'd call it a fourth principle. But it's not fundamental like the others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Lachwurzn
Gott der Signaturen
Alter: 60
Anmeldungsdatum: 14.07.2004
Beiträge: 4055
Wohnort: Wien
|
|
Sorry, I accidentally hit Edit rather than Reply, didn't notice I had and because I'm moderator here, it let me stomp all over your posting. I hope if I leave this here you can rebuild it. The quotations in my following piece are from what once was here. Now I know I can do that, I'll try to be more careful in future.
Christopher Dearlove
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Dearlove
Blue Moon Playtester
Anmeldungsdatum: 22.03.2004
Beiträge: 258
|
|
| Lachwurzn hat folgendes geschrieben: |
I somehow believe that you are talking about the KHIND here although you'll never admit this anyway.
|
No, I won't say which. But it could be any of the decks, because after all, what you see is post massaging (not enough, just right, or too much - I hope the middle one).
| Zitat: |
I can't imagine any leadership card text that is so weak as to allow for zero moons
|
Oh, I can. Just to be really silly, here's one worth zero moons (well, I think so):
Your overall power is reduced to 30 this turn.
Is it possible to reduce that 30 and still be worth zero moons? Yes. Can you reduce it to the point where it's still worth zero moons but someone might actually take it? Don't know (and never will because as I said, it's silly - never dare a fool!)[/quote]
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Gehe zu Seite Zurück 1, 2, 3, 4 Weiter
|
Nächstes Thema anzeigen
Vorheriges Thema anzeigen
Du kannst keine Beiträge in dieses Forum schreiben.
Du kannst auf Beiträge in diesem Forum nicht antworten.
Du kannst deine Beiträge in diesem Forum nicht bearbeiten.
Du kannst deine Beiträge in diesem Forum nicht löschen.
Du kannst an Umfragen in diesem Forum nicht mitmachen.
Du kannst Dateien in diesem Forum nicht posten
Du kannst Dateien in diesem Forum herunterladen
|
 213974 Angriffe abgewehrt
Alle Zeiten sind GMT + 1 Stunde
|
|
