ZAKtheGeek
New Member
I don't know what your point is. You're asking how to try a card. What do you want??
How do you know whether it "helps" your deck? What is the decision mechanism? I want to know exactly. For example, an exact mechanism would be: Following 50 games, you flip a coin; if it lands heads, then the card helps; if it lands tails, then it doesn't help.ZAKtheGeek said:I don't think you can properly evaluate a card without playing it. On-paper is no substitute for actual game situations. So.
1. Put a couple Hermit in a deck where it seems like it might work.
2. Play the deck.
3. See if using the card helps your deck function, ie, helps you win.
Conclusion: if it helps you, it's probably good. At least in that one deck.
I think there's a name for this process. Playtesting, or something...
toby said:How do you know whether it "helps" your deck? What is the decision mechanism? I want to know exactly. For example, an exact mechanism would be: Following 50 games, you flip a coin; if it lands heads, then the card helps; if it lands tails, then it doesn't help.
Once again, how can we make this objective, such that another experimenter can repeat the experiment and come to the same result with some degree of certainty? Note that flipping a coin doesn't yield repeatable results. Please supply a mechanism to decide.
I read plenty closely. It is you who can't comprehend. I'm asking for an exact formulation of how to decide. I'm looking for a formulation that forces the same conclusion (based on whatever evidence is collected) regardless of who the experimenter is. That is, I want precise way of interpretting the data. I don't want: see if it helps. What does see mean? If you see if it helps, and then I see if it helps, I want the conclusion to be the same. What forces us to see and come to the same conclusion?ZAKtheGeek said:If you read closely, you'll see I did give you a fairly precise criteria (criterium?): it helps you win. Consider what the card gives you, and how much easier or more difficult it would have been to win without that effect.
What does consider mean? I'm not looking for some general way of playtesting. If you consider and then I consider, do we necessarily come to the same conclusion? What forces us to conclude the same thing? If we aren't forced to conclude the same thing, then what makes your conclusion valid? If it isn't valid, why should I listen to your conclusion, or you listen to mine? If we needn't listen to one another, why debate the issue? We can't possibly get anywhere if we don't consider in exactly the same way. Do you know what a figure-of-merit is?Absoltrainer said:The way to playtest and understand the results of that playtest is:
-Play a deck you won't auto win or easily win against. Make it a deck that will be a challenge to beat or even an near auto-loss deck (depending on what you are trying to tech in / playtest)
- Play at least 3 or more matches against that deck.
- Afterwards consider how many times you won
- Consider how close you where to winning when you loss
- Consider if the card you added aided in those wins and nearwins
If the card obviously helped you beat or stand more of a chance against a certain deck then the playtest showed that it is useful the keep the card in. If the card did not help or you did not use it as much or as well as you thought you would then reconsider it.
I tested out Heaven's Gate and it has proven to be quite useful overall. I really like it, I just wish other people would try it out.Professor Elm said:I tested out 2x Island Hermit in my Ledian d/Arbok d/Quagsire d and it has proven to be quite useful overall. I really like it, I just wish other people would try it out. Being able to know your prizes REALLY comes in handy sometimes.
Running 3 or 4 is not something I suggest though cause they will just become dead weight if you don't have any prizes to flip.
toby said:What does consider mean? I'm not looking for some general way of playtesting. If you consider and then I consider, do we necessarily come to the same conclusion? What forces us to conclude the same thing? If we aren't forced to conclude the same thing, then what makes your conclusion valid? If it isn't valid, why should I listen to your conclusion, or you listen to mine? If we needn't listen to one another, why debate the issue? We can't possibly get anywhere if we don't consider in exactly the same way. Do you know what a figure-of-merit is?
I guess we should just give up, then. We should say pi is 3, because we don't have the foggiest notion how to compute it. That's what you're arguing, right? If we don't know what the answer is, then we should just throw our arms up and believe in something, right or wrong. It's better to believe something which might be false, then find ourselves in doubt, right?ZAKtheGeek said:Well, dude, it's a complicated game. You're just not going to get anything much more specific than that. If that's what it takes to prove to you that a card is "good," then pretty much all cards are going to be mysterious in their utility to you.
And what good is that? People have opinions about all kinds of things. Why should I believe my opinion about whether the card is good in preference to somebody else's opinion? Let's suppose I try out Heaven's Gate, and in my opinion, it seems pretty good for me. My freinds and family have a different opinion: they say it is a dangerous cult. Now, what am I to do? Should I trust my opinion, simply because I generated it?Absoltrainer said:consider means to think carefully about, esp. in order to make a decision; contemplate.
Well in this case to think carefully about, esp. in order to make a decision; contemplate how the card in your opinion helped or hurt you deck..
How do you know that? It's very difficult to know that something does not exist. Are you quite sure you want to make that assertion? A thousand years ago, you might have well asserted that viruses don't exist. Okay, prove to me that there is no formula to decide if a card is good for a deck or not.Absoltrainer said:There is not number formula to decide if a card is good for a deck or not.
toby said:I guess we should just give up, then. We should say pi is 3, because we don't have the foggiest notion how to compute it. That's what you're arguing, right? If we don't know what the answer is, then we should just throw our arms up and believe in something, right or wrong. It's better to believe something which might be false, then find ourselves in doubt, right?
toby said:And what good is that? People have opinions about all kinds of things. Why should I believe my opinion about whether the card is good in preference to somebody else's opinion? Let's suppose I try out Heaven's Gate, and in my opinion, it seems pretty good for me. My freinds and family have a different opinion: they say it is a dangerous cult. Now, what am I to do? Should I trust my opinion, simply because I generated it?
toby said:How do you know that? It's very difficult to know that something does not exist. Are you quite sure you want to make that assertion? A thousand years ago, you might have well asserted that viruses don't exist. Okay, prove to me that there is no formula to decide if a card is good for a deck or not.
I'm only giving up based on your ridiculously precise standard. I'm sorry, but I doubt very many people need to be so thoroughly convinced that a card is good that only a specific mathematical formula for success (and satisfaction of it, of course) would be good enough.I guess we should just give up, then. We should say pi is 3, because we don't have the foggiest notion how to compute it. That's what you're arguing, right?
What are you talking about? What is this belief in this case, again...?If we don't know what the answer is, then we should just throw our arms up and believe in something, right or wrong. It's better to believe something which might be false, then find ourselves in doubt, right?
PSYCO829 said:the scientific methon applied to pokemon...
awesome