Ok, the Ash mesphit is normal. First, it places them on random points.
And, the total number is 15 (only stats).
But, when you consider they position, it can rest some, at least 1.
Making the total number 14, the average among 5 mana cost.
Some balance methods
wut, a 6/6 will eat pretty much anything that trades into it, 3/3 dies to basicaly everthing, general+bloodtear does it, as does most things costing more than 3. If there were a 6/6 for 3 mana then it would be the best 3 drop ever, kindred hunter however is barely viable except in kara due to her bbs buffing both of them. in such a removal heavy game keeping an arcanyst on board to proc it is not consistant, so it ends up being at least a 4-5 mana play, at which point dealing with a bunch of bad minions is easy.
2 Likes
Do you even Pax bro?
You canât just use stat numbers to evaluate cards like that. The most significant place where two 3/3s are better than a 6/6 is against minions with lower health and higher attack, (ex: can trade with two 6/3s) and those are rarely played in Duelyst. kindred hunter is rarely two 3/3s early in the game. Since it needs bond to trigger, the opponentâs turn 1 would have to be pretty bad (manaforger, Circulus, aethermaster) for it to be of any use.
If any of the turn 1 activators were to die, this would just be a 3/3 for 3, which is even worse now that you wasted your turn 1 playing a crappy 2 drop. Maybe you just got unlucky, couldnât remove a 2 drop Arcanyst, and thought that this is two 3/3s reliably.
1 Like
Battle pets are a problem for this method, those stats are very good, but they lack in strategy.
Also, you cannot use Pax and both 2/2 at the same time, wich changes a lot.
There is a way, Gloomshaser, it has a lot of conditions, but it can.
And, you said it, a 6/6 minion for only 3 mana is crazy, so that shows my point.
Take into account that the enemy general cannot deal with this sort of minion in the early game, because he only has 2/3 minions in game (normally). And those will die against a 3/3.
That goes back to my point that you canât reduce it to one number. Youâd need a probability distribution. Then you could come up with an average, but even that isnât super useful.
3 Likes
Just try it out man. Compare it to the other 3-drops in the game in actual gameplay.
Or donât, and base your paradigm and hence future realm of thought/understanding on a, according to many here, shaky foundation.
There are many scenarios in which having one 6/6 is better than having two 3/3s (for example, Songhai will, as a general rule, have more trouble removing a single large minion than two smaller ones). Sorry mate, itâs not that your âmethodâ is not an âabsolute solutionâ, itâs just that it simply doesnât work - itâs completely unreliable, because, as people have already pointed out, there are so many âexceptionsâ to your ârulesâ that they canât be really seen as ârulesâ anymore. And if we try to salvage the one useful part of your âmethodâ - namely, the idea that you can get a rough approximate of a minionâs strength by counting its total stats and adding the value of the effect - well, it turns out that itâs something that everyoneâs been doing for, like, forever, and they donât need any particular âmethodâ to do so.
[I donât mean to be rude, I appreciate the effort, I do, but defending this âmethodâ is a lost cause, mate.]
Please inform yourself before talking,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3b3hDvRjJA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZnjwdStzUc
both videos are made by a game designer, who knows more than you, and me of course.
Also,maybe you donât mean to be rude, but when you say that a method is a lost cause you are talking like if you were objectively right, and thatâs not the case at all.
This method is just used to chek if any card belongs in the power curve, it canât take into account ALL possible uses. No method can.
Well, if I âbelieveâ something, I âbelieveâ itâs objectively right 
Thatâs the definition of knowledge/belief/opinion. Thereâs nothing either I or you can do about it, mate. I can be wrong, sure, Iâm open to the possibility, but Iâd have to be convinced to change my opinion. I canât just arbitrarily decide that the things I believe are no more or less true than their exact opposites, for example - no one can. Thatâs why human beings like discussing things, making arguments and trying to convince each other theyâre right.
The only person whoâs being genuinely rude is you, mate. âPlease inform yourself before talkingâ is not a phrase that should be used in any conversation, period.
And let me reiterate, because in the context of the links youâve just posted Iâm not sure you actually understood my point. Making a rough estimate of the power of any given card by adding its stats and assigning a certain value to its effect is something everyone already does. It might be considered a âmethodâ of sorts, but itâs so intuitive to everyone whoâs played any CCG at all that you canât really present it as something ânewâ.
But you tried to codify something that everyone does instinctively. OK, thatâs your right, and itâs certainly an interesting proposition. And of course your âmethodâ canât take all things into consideration - the most important question now is whether the number of factors this âmethodâ ignores ultimately renders it useless or not. Well, as many have already pointed out in the discussion above, this number is really really large. You can try incorporating those previously ignored factors into your method - by all means, do, if you have enough time and energy - but there are good chances that your initial framework was simply too narrow and youâll end up with a âmethodâ that consists (almost) solely of exceptions and arbitrary numbers.
Now, youâve posted links to videos about HS design. Setting aside for a moment what I actually think about the design of this particular game (I think many members of Duelyst community share my quite sceptical attitude here), and the fact that setting a design mandate and estimating the value of an already existing card are two different things, and the fact that those two videosâ link to your argument is tenuous at best, let me just point out one thing: Duelyst has a board. Itâs much easier to quantify the worth of a âcardâ when it does not translate to a âminionâ on the board. If you want to estimate the value of any given unit in Duelyst, you must take into account a number of scenarios and factors to do with the board - how the unit âbehavesâ after itâs played, so to say, in a spatial environment. There are other unique and semi-unique mechanics that you should probably consider if you want your âmethodâ to transition well from a generic CCG to Duelyst (think replacing, universal 3-card limit, importance of early game drops); but in order to get there, youâd need to overcome a frankly astonishing number of much simpler, much more straightforward obstacles that everyoneâs already pointed out. Which, once again, leads me to saying: this âmethodâ can be embraced as something everyone already instinctively does (but then itâs not much of a âmethodâ, is it?), but its initial framework is otherwise far too narrow.
Of course, if you want to keep working on it, I wish you good luck - I honestly do. But it doesnât change the fact that I donât believe this âmethodâ can be salvaged. Youâd need to come up with another one.
I am a game designer. Of turn-based games with tactical combat even.
I declare your method flawed, but of course I am speaking just for myself, not making objective statements for how reality undeniably is.
However, we do HAVE the word âobjectiveâ even though EVERYTHING is subjective.
Hence, it must mean something. Thereâs a value to that word.
Maybe âobjectiveâ secretly means the consensus? If one person claims and really honestly believes X is true and everyone else thinks X is false, the most objective of the two (the least LIKELY to be a weird subjective viewpoint) is the viewpoint of the majority (this does assume comparable intelligence (both IQ and the info kind) across everyone in this hypothetical example).
Nah, these operate on two different levels/layers, so to say. Iâm going to simplify a bit here, but: âsubjectiveâ refers (in its usual, everyday usage) to the practical or epistemological level - defines who a certain thing, or property or feature, belongs to; or who can be seen as a credible opinion-giver on a certain subject. If I say âIâm feeling sickâ itâs obviously âsubjectiveâ, but not because whether I feel sick or not depends on someoneâs opinion, but because Iâm the only one who can give a credible (in this case, almost definitive) verdict on the matter.
âObjectiveâ operates on an ontological level, and refers to the things that, quite simply, are - no matter what anyone thinks of them. Obviously not everyone will agree that they are (or arenât), and they may be (or not be) in a partial or weird or previously unknown way, but the term itself refers to the ontological status of a thing. Itâs independent of anyoneâs opinion. If you believe that the chair âisâ, you believe it âobjectivelyâ is (although your way of knowing or not knowing it is, obviously, subjective).
Thatâs why, strictly speaking, something can be both subjective (again - in this everyday, common sense meaning) and objective. For example, if I hate something, my feeling is obviously subjective (because itâs my feeling), but the fact that I hate it (as long as I indeed hate it) is independent of what anyone thinks about it, and thus itâs objective. Itâs a subjective feeling, but the fact that I feel it is objective, so to say.
(I appreciate the sarcasm in the last paragraph tho)
1 Like
There is no sarcasm in the last paragraph? How did you read that in there?
Anyway, itâs highly debatable where there exist things which âareâ. Ever heard of âbrain in a vatâ?
There is no information that we can ever have except maybe some vague awareness or if you believe in a soul etc. that does not come through our subjective channels.
We assume weâre not alone and everything else is a very vivid dream-unlike-those-others-at-night, but we can never prove that this is the case.
You can never prove that you exist outside of my subjective reality, to me. And vice versa.
Hence, objective does kind of mean âconsensusâ, because at some point philosophy is nice and all, but you do need to go kill that mammoth over there.
My take on it anyway.
The method isnât totally wrong,
Right now one of the problem is the definition of basic abilityâs power level, like rush and so.
To start making this method a bit better (i think the op stated clarily that this method isnât perfect)
This method is heavily bonded to the game, as some âvaluesâ needs to be adjusted depending on the game, in this case: duelyst.
Actually the atk of a unit is not important as his def
There will be a need for a multiplier of some sort to adjust to the importance of those values, as an example atk could be less important than def by 1/10 (is an example) so a 3/4 would have a 4.3 total number called tn from now on (def + atk/10)
The same goes for def, we need to apply some kind of multiplier to make some space later for eventual abilityâs value as an example letâs say def is 1.5 times important to define the tn of a unit
A 3/4 would have a tn equal to 6.3
(def * 1.5 + atk / 10)
The same goes for each one of the abilities that every unit gets, how many it gets and the sinergy between them
Like rush and frenzy togheter will give more tn to a unit when paired togheter.
You see the problem:
Atk is less important than defence, right?
Using my example multiplier:
a 50/1 (tn 6.5) should be better than a 2/3 (tn 4.7).
While i personally would play a 50/1 for 2 mana (yes, we still didnât add the âmanaâ factor) this is far from the truth of duelyst.
Ence there are other multipliers to add, since if the def is 1 the minion will have problems against pings and such.
there will be a multiplier for even number defences
And odd number defences
As odd numbered defence are more useful the lower they are (aka having 9 def on a minion is less important than having 3)
Then there will be a multiplier for the used mana, another to take into account from when this card can be played during the game (specifically the turn in wich it can be played) and another one to indicate the card advantage given by the card itself.
These are a mere part of the multiplier youâd need to have the exact tn of a card.
Iâll just say this,
i like the idea
but there is no end in this rabbit hole
Oh, sorry about the sarcasm then.
As for the rest, yeah, but it just means that you donât know whether things (objectively) are You question whether things are, you wonder why they are or even if they can be at all etc. That doesnât change anything in the idea of objectivity itself.
Everything comes through âsubjectiveâ channels, but in order to undermine the idea of objectivity youâd either need to hold no beliefs at all (in other words: not have any thoughts) or be able to go outside your own beliefs (which would allow you to say âtruth is what people believe to be trueâ and genuinely believe it, but which is, by definition, impossible). The chair may be or not be or whatever, but if you believe it âisâ, then, in your opinion, it objectively is; someone else may think it is not, but it doesnât mean that the existence of the chair depends on someoneâs opinion. It just means you disagree.
As long as you have opinions, thoughts and beliefs, there are things that you believe âareâ - and these things, in your opinion, âobjectivelyâ are (this doesnât necessarily mean they âareâ in a materialistic, physical sense - if you believe that there is a such-and-such God, for you, he âobjectivelyâ is such-and-such). In other words, you donât need to âproveâ anything to have the idea of objectivity, you just need to think/believe. And thatâs why you canât live without this idea.
(It might help to think of objectivity in reverse, so to say - itâs the category we invented in order to describe what it means to believe/think rather than the other way round. âObjectiveâ means âtrueâ, but itâs always âtrue in my opinionâ, because thereâs no escaping your own opinion.)
All good points. Iâd also add to that the question of the generalâs default attack value. Because the general can take out a 2hp minion with a single hit, in Duelyst difference between 2 and 3 health will not be necessarily equal to a difference between 3 and 4 health (and the difference between 4 and 5 health and so on). But itâs probably more important in early game than later on. Then there are pings⌠Anyway, my point is: even if you consider the stats (attack/hp) separately, the math is still not that simple and consistent - 1 doesnât always equal 1.
1 Like
I see what you mean.
We probably agree.
Just a question, but Iâll PM you.
If someone whants to help me remake the method, i would appreciate it. After reading, i can admit it has too many flaws, and can be polished.
Why would someone want to use his time in this? Because this game needs help, no game is perfect and there are too many unbalanced cards in duelyst (please admit it).
For examle, i use plasma storm, but i can admit it is OP, even if i love it. (Because many mininions have 3 attack or less).
So, in case anyone wants to help me and this game, please PM me.
And, in the topic of Objective and subjective, itâs not a difficult matter at all, there are many things more diffult to define/discuss than that.
To simplify:
Subjective belongs to opinion, defined by personal experience, feelings and points of view.
Objective belongs to undeniable truth, for example 2+2=4, and so on. Itâs almost impossible to have a objective way of thinking, because all persons are afected by experiences, feelings, etc.
Also, is arrogant to think that any opinion can be objective, no mather the case.
Your understanding of subjectivity vs objectivity is almost as flawed as your method, mate. Thereâs nothing âarrogantâ in what Iâve written (you conflate âobjectiveâ with âundeniableâ, thatâs why youâre talking about âobjective opinionsâ and such, which is just straight up silly; every statement is by its very nature âdeniableâ, including 2+2=4).
In general, right now you come across as both quite arrogant and out of your element. Youâre very eager to declare an issue simple, solvable etc. - be it game design or ontology - just to prove time and again, in the very next sentence, that you simply donât understand the complexity of the subject.
I honestly would help you, OP, because I really appreciate your passion/ambition in this endeavor, but I am ill at the moment and have little energy in general so I will not.
Just wanted you to know that Iâm sympathetic towards your cause.
As to your example of undeniable 2+2=4, just to offer more insight, if youâre in a base 3 system (instead of a decimal system) 2+2=11, and you didnât specify what system you were in (and even if you did, I can just deny something because I feel like it, there is no inescapable law that things have to make sense :p).