Please errate Perfectionnist !

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Peter D Bakija wrote:
| Derek Ray wrote:
|
|>OMG, who'd have thought -- actually trying something at a MILD level
|>first, to see if it's underpowered or just right, before adding stronger
|>stuff in later if it IS underpowered.
|
| Hey, it works for me. I don't so much have a problem with the weak
Archtypes
| (well, except that i have so darn many of them...)

You'd almost swear there was someone planning this stuff, huh?

- --
Derek

insert clever quotation here

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFCUd+6tQZlu3o7QpERAqICAKC7x0pT29ZTXWmM3+KRd+amnMqPBACfVBfa
YNx0v1g06Zm8WQ8BbIPGA9M=
=XE+G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 18:17:31 -0400, Derek Ray <lorimer@yahoo.com> wrote:

> OMG, who'd have thought -- actually trying something at a MILD level
> first, to see if it's underpowered or just right, before adding stronger
> stuff in later if it IS underpowered.
>
> Hey, I got a great idea; instead of pouring a cupful of salt on my
> dinner before tasting it, how about I make this thing called a "shaker",
> where I try a little bit first and then add more later if I need?

Good idea. I think that based on this piece of insight, from now on new
sets should be tested by certain skilled players before release to see
that no card is broken/wallpaper. Like, playtesters or something?

Geez. So few bullets...

--
Bye,

Daneel

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

In message <opsoqd0fq7o6j3lh@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu>
writes:
>Good idea. I think that based on this piece of insight, from now on new
> sets should be tested by certain skilled players before release to see
> that no card is broken/wallpaper. Like, playtesters or something?

No amount of playtesting will accurately simulate use of cards in the
real world. It's simply not possible. Lots and lots of cards have
clearly not been playtested thoroughly enough, either for good or ill.

For a start, many uses of interesting/unusual cards have simply not been
found for some YEARS after a set has been released. For instance, the
Betrayer/Recruitment deck was, so far as anyone can tell, never spotted,
and took some considerable time to develop anyway. (No longer possible,
post-grouping.)

--
James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?"
13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 19:06:35 +0100, James Coupe <james@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:

> In message <opsoqd0fq7o6j3lh@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu>
> writes:
>> Good idea. I think that based on this piece of insight, from now on new
>> sets should be tested by certain skilled players before release to see
>> that no card is broken/wallpaper. Like, playtesters or something?
>
> No amount of playtesting will accurately simulate use of cards in the
> real world. It's simply not possible. Lots and lots of cards have
> clearly not been playtested thoroughly enough, either for good or ill.

You obviously missed the mocking tone of my post. There's no need to
state the obvious.

> For a start, many uses of interesting/unusual cards have simply not been
> found for some YEARS after a set has been released. For instance, the
> Betrayer/Recruitment deck was, so far as anyone can tell, never spotted,
> and took some considerable time to develop anyway. (No longer possible,
> post-grouping.)

The point being... Exactly what? We're not talking about some weird
combo here. We're talking about cards people try to use for what
they were inteded for.

--
Bye,

Daneel

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

James Coupe wrote:
| In message <opsoqd0fq7o6j3lh@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu>
| writes:
|
|>Good idea. I think that based on this piece of insight, from now on new
|>sets should be tested by certain skilled players before release to see
|>that no card is broken/wallpaper. Like, playtesters or something?
|
| No amount of playtesting will accurately simulate use of cards in the
| real world. It's simply not possible. Lots and lots of cards have
| clearly not been playtested thoroughly enough, either for good or ill.

Also worth noting that it is _not_ the primary purpose of playtesting to
identify weak cards that need improvement -- quite the contrary.

Playtesting should first try to spot over-strong/broken cards that need
toning down, and beyond that, to PLAY the cards and see how they do.
Typically you don't run out of strong cards to focus on by the time the
set is due for release, so the weak ones never get looked at much other
than "Bob found a use for it in _X_ deck, and put it in."

It's a shame, but given the limited time and resources available, it's
much more critical to ensure that the game doesn't break than all the
cards are "good". A few wallpaper cards only hurt themselves; something
like Return to Innocence getting through hurts the whole game.

- --
Derek

insert clever quotation here

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFCUwiBtQZlu3o7QpERAnoeAKCq730hc0kbqnx1bfzRjlsZZiNvzgCg0Cp0
Ki9a1oG/RG1HWqzLUnB9W9Q=
=6JPj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

In message <opsorwghtdo6j3lh@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu>
writes:
>On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 19:06:35 +0100, James Coupe <james@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
>> In message <opsoqd0fq7o6j3lh@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu>
>> writes:
>>> Good idea. I think that based on this piece of insight, from now on new
>>> sets should be tested by certain skilled players before release to see
>>> that no card is broken/wallpaper. Like, playtesters or something?
>>
>> No amount of playtesting will accurately simulate use of cards in the
>> real world. It's simply not possible. Lots and lots of cards have
>> clearly not been playtested thoroughly enough, either for good or ill.
>
>You obviously missed the mocking tone of my post. There's no need to
> state the obvious.

What you were mocking was far from obvious. You could easily be mocking
Derek's point that introducing some things weaker than they might be
could be good, to allow empowering when they've been explored, and that
playtesting should catch this. At which point, pointing out that
playtesting is and always will be fallible is far from "stating the
obvious".


>> For a start, many uses of interesting/unusual cards have simply not been
>> found for some YEARS after a set has been released. For instance, the
>> Betrayer/Recruitment deck was, so far as anyone can tell, never spotted,
>> and took some considerable time to develop anyway. (No longer possible,
>> post-grouping.)
>
>The point being... Exactly what? We're not talking about some weird
> combo here. We're talking about cards people try to use for what
> they were inteded for.

Sigh.

That playtesters miss some (many) things, including that some things may
be underpowered and that others may be over-powered, and that some
things won't be tested at all. Not all cards will be played with, not
all combos will be tried, both obvious and obscure, both good and ill.

With 100 new cards to play, and 100s of existing cards to try them with,
and limited time for testing, not all cards will be tested to their
fullest extent, and some playtesters will overlook some, perhaps many,
cards.

If a card looks "boring", it will be often be overlooked by people and
the true significance of it, as a good or bad card, can be missed.


However, given that you seemed to have some considerable trouble
understanding the idea that people may include Wakes for a wide variety
of valid reasons and toss them against actions when they don't need them
and that this might thwart Perfectionist, please don't be surprised when
people "state the obvious". Such displays tend to make it look like
explaining things is needed.

--
James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?"
13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

In message <opsor363b0o6j3lh@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu>
writes:
>> However, given that you seemed to have some considerable trouble
>> understanding the idea that people may include Wakes for a wide variety
>> of valid reasons and toss them against actions when they don't need them
>> and that this might thwart Perfectionist, please don't be surprised when
>> people "state the obvious". Such displays tend to make it look like
>> explaining things is needed.
>
>Interesting how the personal level often gets introduced into arguments
> instead (or aside) of providing related arguments.

No, this is simply the truth.

The way people appear affects the way people respond to them. You have
made quite a few mind-bogglingly bizarre statements in your time.
People aren't going to assume that everything you say is tongue in cheek
mockery, as a result.

If this troubles you, welcome to the real world.

--
James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?"
13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 23:23:50 +0100, James Coupe <james@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:

> In message <opsor363b0o6j3lh@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu>
> writes:
>>> However, given that you seemed to have some considerable trouble
>>> understanding the idea that people may include Wakes for a wide variety
>>> of valid reasons and toss them against actions when they don't need
>>> them
>>> and that this might thwart Perfectionist, please don't be surprised
>>> when
>>> people "state the obvious". Such displays tend to make it look like
>>> explaining things is needed.
>>
>> Interesting how the personal level often gets introduced into arguments
>> instead (or aside) of providing related arguments.
>
> No, this is simply the truth.
>
> The way people appear affects the way people respond to them. You have
> made quite a few mind-bogglingly bizarre statements in your time.
> People aren't going to assume that everything you say is tongue in cheek
> mockery, as a result.
>
> If this troubles you, welcome to the real world.

....

Given how you liberally snipped the part where I (again) explained how
your assessment is wrong, I fail to see the reason to further delude
myself by assuming you ever had anything to say in this matter that is
actually useful or at least slightly related to subject.

--
Bye,

Daneel

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

In message <opsor60ug8o6j3lh@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu>
writes:
>Given how you liberally snipped the part where I (again) explained how
> your assessment is wrong, I fail to see the reason to further delude
> myself by assuming you ever had anything to say in this matter that is
> actually useful or at least slightly related to subject.

My assessment may be wrong. It is, however, my assessment based on your
previous behaviour. And it may be wrong, but that's the way the cookie
crumbles.

Also, I respond to the bits I want to respond to, and not to the other
bits that don't interest me. That's how Usenet works. Your rebuttals
of why I'm wrong aren't what I wanted to address. The fact that people
may do things which appear, to you, to be "stating the obvious" based on
the fact that they previous interactions cloud their judgements was what
I wanted to address.

What's hard about that?

People respond to the bits they want to. Not the bits you want them to.
Welcome to Usenet.

--
James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?"
13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Daneel wrote:

> Ah, the golden words of the witless cynic. If you have thoughts,
present
> them; if you have style, let it show. If you have neither, just
type a
> lot, because you can. Counterarguments? Who cares. Just type more
than
> the other guy. Being proven wrong again and again? No problem, just
keep
> on typing, and say back the same things the other said to you.
Well,
> happy typing, Mr. Usenet. 😉

I thought that was "Mr. Davidson" around here..

> Daneel

-John Flournoy

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 00:37:43 +0100, James Coupe <james@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:

> In message <opsor60ug8o6j3lh@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu>
> writes:
>> Given how you liberally snipped the part where I (again) explained how
>> your assessment is wrong, I fail to see the reason to further delude
>> myself by assuming you ever had anything to say in this matter that is
>> actually useful or at least slightly related to subject.
>
> My assessment may be wrong. It is, however, my assessment based on your
> previous behaviour. And it may be wrong, but that's the way the cookie
> crumbles.
>
> Also, I respond to the bits I want to respond to, and not to the other
> bits that don't interest me. That's how Usenet works. Your rebuttals
> of why I'm wrong aren't what I wanted to address. The fact that people
> may do things which appear, to you, to be "stating the obvious" based on
> the fact that they previous interactions cloud their judgements was what
> I wanted to address.
>
> What's hard about that?
>
> People respond to the bits they want to. Not the bits you want them to.
> Welcome to Usenet.

Ah, the golden words of the witless cynic. If you have thoughts, present
them; if you have style, let it show. If you have neither, just type a
lot, because you can. Counterarguments? Who cares. Just type more than
the other guy. Being proven wrong again and again? No problem, just keep
on typing, and say back the same things the other said to you. Well,
happy typing, Mr. Usenet. 😉

--
Bye,

Daneel