I really wish people would learn what "strictly worse" actually means.
Agreed.
A good example of one card being strictly worse than another would be the Bloodfen Raptor and the Acidic Swamp Ooze. They both have the same cost, they both have the same stat-line, but one has an ability and the other does not.
Kidnapper has no such direct comparison. No other card has the same ability and no other card has the same stat distribution.
Blizzard clearly priced it as a 4-mana minion + Sap. However, the Sap effect is conditional, and the minion's stat distribution is one of the worst our there for a 4-mana minion. As a result the card is very weak when played out of combo and still somewhat weak when played in combo. This is in stark contrast to other combo cards, which are weak for cost when played first, but strong for cost when played for full effect.
Reducing the cost by 1 would address this imbalance. Reducing the cost and adjusting the stat distribution would risk making the card too strong (and it would reduce stat diversity in the game).
Giving the Kinapper the ability to actually kidnap (steal) the other player's card would be amazing thematically - but that effect alone would probably be worth 7 or 8 mana, and a 10-cost combo card is kind of missing the point.
I always wanted blizzard to change it to 5mana 4/4. Combo: Sap an enemy minion and return it to YOUR hand. This minion costs 2 more.
About 10 years ago there was some research that came out showing that the original experiments used to prove the theory ignored the results of the experiment. Specifically, groups of people will tend to cooperate rather then serve their self-interests. Here's an article that addresses this aspect of Game Theory as well http://statenews.com/article/2013/08/msu-researchers-debunk-game-theory
Of course, there's a reason why after 70 years it's still considered theory and not law.
If an American wants piss a British guy off [me] all they have to do is tell that they "could care less" about my opinion. I mention this mostly because it speaks to my personality; I hate it when there is a disconnect between what is said and what is actually meant.
But anyway, I reckon your're right when card players use strictly better; I bet half of them have probably never heard of game theory. Even still, that's the theoretical context for the term "strictly".
As for your southsea "weakly dominates", well once again to deviate from game theory I was thinking more on a grand scale --- over 100 games its better, not necessarily any individual game, the "over many games" approach is the only proper way to evaluate decks, afterall.
But this is pedantry, its simply better say "the Pirate is better in most cases except...." Why cannot that phrase catch on? X is "better in most cases". Its more accurate, afterall.
The other reason I think it matters is part of my (yet unfinished) guide; the words we use to describe cards influences our thought; if you use strictly incorrectly then you risk missing possibilities such as River Croc > Sunfury protector.
With all this said, I think your definition is fine. But the problem now is that we only have to look at this thread to see "strictly better" is still being misused, even under this (reasonable) definition.
Also, I would have given an example of Mortal Strike > Fireball if I could think of one. Given the current pool it does seem as if Fireball is just, well, better in most cases.
You agreed with me that the context level of evaluation is deck-building. and thus, since Fireball can never be chosen of Mortal Strike it really doesnt matter what card is better than the other. If we allow for cross-class discussion then we might as well say Savagery is better than most warrior removal. In Warrior that card would basically be a another shield slam (e.g With Gorehowl Savergy would do 7). but such a move is not legal, and thus, IMO, such considerations are pointless.
Obviously, a lot of people exaggerate or misuse "strictly better". I think there is a a reason however for a term like that to express the gradation in superiority.
On the other hand, in a bizarre format where you can play both Warrior and Mage cards, you would never choose to put Mortal Strike instead of Fireballin your deck. Obviously, comparing cards from different classes doesn't make much sense, but, because of the limited card pool, this is the only example in Hearthstone I could come up with for a strictly better card.
Anyway, I think most of the disagreement stems because the term "strictly better" is not the perfect expression to describe that relationship. I agree, but this is the term that has been popularized so we have to work with what has been given to us.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm so glad there is prejudice against playing hunter/zoo/[insert FotM deck here]. People like that make the life so much easier for those of us who play to win.
in the past I have written about How Farsight is actually good (search my old posts, if interested).
- Lets you play with a 28 card deck instead of 30.
- Gadgetzan synergy.
- Has the potential of introducing costly cards into the table very early (e.g. Al-Akir, Ysera) vs a deck which is slow in applying pressure, or can allow a very powerful finish combo (e.g. Leeroy, Bloodlust) by setting up "extra mana" for the combo turn in advance.
I geuss these are some pretty decent points but I just dont see them as a benefit. I mean I've never built a deck to 28 and said, man I wish I could stop here. I generally get to 30 and then go oh shit there were 2-3 more I wanted to include. Then I have to spend a few minutes rebuilding. All though, I think its fair to say I'm not one of the best deck-builders. Maybe itll gain some prominence in some deck somewhere along the lines.
The Gadgetzan synergy is probably the best point and I would even add in that it might be interesting to try some kind of token Shaman with the Violet Teacher and FS. With either Gadget or VT it would be pretty situational but then I again I guess that puts it pretty close to on par with Preperation. But Prep has the benefit of letting you use it with anything that was already in your hand instead of just one luck of the draw.
The last part I just dont see how you can rely on that. If you get the right draw then yes, it gets something out way earlier than it normally would come out. But again, you have to give up tempo for a turn before you can use whatever awesome thing you drew. The bigger benefit in my eyes is the idea that you could have a one turn combo of any 8 cost Legendary like Ragnaros, Gruul, or Al Akir and Faceless Manipulator. Now that could end up being an amazing turn 10.
I geuss these are some pretty decent points but I just dont see them as a benefit. I mean I've never built a deck to 28 and said, man I wish I could stop here. I generally get to 30 and then go oh shit there were 2-3 more I wanted to include. Then I have to spend a few minutes rebuilding. All though, I think its fair to say I'm not one of the best deck-builders. Maybe itll gain some prominence in some deck somewhere along the lines.
That's one of the biggest challenges newer players face in games where you can choose the number of cards in your deck. In 99.9% of the cases it's correct to include the minimum number of cards in your deck.
The reason for that is simple: Not all cards are created equal. There are always some cards in your deck that are stronger than others. By playing more cards than necessary you decrease the chance that you draw your good cards for no real benefit unless you draw your whole deck.
Incidentally, that's the main reason everyone was playing Novice Engineer back when he was a 1/2
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm so glad there is prejudice against playing hunter/zoo/[insert FotM deck here]. People like that make the life so much easier for those of us who play to win.
Ric Edwards @TheKIsEvil @bdbrode Can you tell a story when u thought Kidnapper was a good card worthy of an Epic? Plz tell me it used to put any card into your hand
Ben Brode @bdbrode @TheKIsEvil It used to cost 5, and it was WAY too good. I still think in the right deck it can be good (though frustrating).
I think the 5-mana to 6-mana jump is one of those thinks like 4-health vs. 5-health; the impact is far greater than the numbers indicate.
As far as I can tell the "right deck" is either the gimicky mill-deck or a Molten Giant deck - and in both cases, he'd be more likely to see use as an overpriced Brewmaster (though the option for using him as taunt clear remains).
So... I decided to try to build a deck with farsight and violet teacher and it is actually working pretty decently. A lot of the time farsight is just to make the deck artificially smaller and/or get 1 extra 1/1. It's not a fun and sexy use but it opens you up to getting to other combos. More importantly the dream combo is so insanely fun that I actually walked away from the game for a bit after pulling it off. Turn 3 farsight draws ragnaros. Playing against a Druid so I wasn't too afraid of hard removal so turn 4 I coined out my now 5 cost ragnaros. Then turn 5 I faceless manipulator for double rag.
I take back my hate on for it. I'm convinced that it could be used very efficiently. I don't think that I am there yet but I'm gonna keep tweaking until I am.
About 10 years ago there was some research that came out showing that the original experiments used to prove the theory ignored the results of the experiment. Specifically, groups of people will tend to cooperate rather then serve their self-interests. Here's an article that addresses this aspect of Game Theory as well http://statenews.com/article/2013/08/msu-researchers-debunk-game-theory
Of course, there's a reason why after 70 years it's still considered theory and not law.
Because you are trying to conflate the academic meaning of theory with the common person's.
It's a bit of a trend that a lot of decks are tapping into 0 mana spells and gadgetzan. Spellpower + moonfire token druid looks quite powerful. Token shaman is another deck that is waiting to get made.
It's a bit of a trend that a lot of decks are tapping into 0 mana spells and gadgetzan. Spellpower + moonfire token druid looks quite powerful. Token shaman is another deck that is waiting to get made.
Yeah the success of Miracle Rogue makes people wonder if they can do similar things with other decks. I actually only threw 1 Gadgetzan in the token Shaman I am playing around with. That combo is nice but not really what the deck is about. In fact I find when I abuse Gadgetzan I end up over filling my hand and burning cards.
IMO it is more about strong control (which the Shaman of course excels at), Violet Teacher for swarm whilst doing that control, Far Sight to force the deck to be faster/give interesting combo options later and strong legendaries to finish. Mine is running with Rag, Ysera, and Onyxia. I know Onyxia gets a bad rap but she can be super useful against Zoo when Ive been delaying them all game long but their pressure just doesnt quit or when I just want to flood the board to give them something to worry about. I dont run Bloodlust (maybe I should but I found that I never used it in the dozen or so games I tested with it in) but when you see Onyxia come out from a Shaman Bloodlust leaps to mind and people will focus on clearing the mess of 1/1s instead of the 8/8.
All in all it is an interesting deck but it runs pretty expensive. If anyone is interested I will throw together the decklist and start a new thread in the Shaman forums. Then I will link it from this one. Ive not yet run it in ranked, only a couple dozen times in unranked, and Im only rank 10. So who knows if this idea could actually work at high levels but it seems like once I settle the deck down it will be pretty solid.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I always wanted blizzard to change it to 5mana 4/4. Combo: Sap an enemy minion and return it to YOUR hand. This minion costs 2 more.
Thanks FOO(The Banner God)!
http://www.fastcompany.com/52317/you-got-game-theory
About 10 years ago there was some research that came out showing that the original experiments used to prove the theory ignored the results of the experiment. Specifically, groups of people will tend to cooperate rather then serve their self-interests. Here's an article that addresses this aspect of Game Theory as well http://statenews.com/article/2013/08/msu-researchers-debunk-game-theory
Of course, there's a reason why after 70 years it's still considered theory and not law.
Obviously, a lot of people exaggerate or misuse "strictly better". I think there is a a reason however for a term like that to express the gradation in superiority.
For example, Boulderfist Ogre is almost always better than War Golem because it's one mana cheaper and it doesn't die to Big Game Hunter, but if you know your opponent is a Priest who plays two Boulderfist Ogres and no BGH you could decide to play War Golem over Boulderfist Ogre.
On the other hand, in a bizarre format where you can play both Warrior and Mage cards, you would never choose to put Mortal Strike instead of Fireballin your deck. Obviously, comparing cards from different classes doesn't make much sense, but, because of the limited card pool, this is the only example in Hearthstone I could come up with for a strictly better card.
Anyway, I think most of the disagreement stems because the term "strictly better" is not the perfect expression to describe that relationship. I agree, but this is the term that has been popularized so we have to work with what has been given to us.
I'm so glad there is prejudice against playing hunter/zoo/[insert FotM deck here]. People like that make the life so much easier for those of us who play to win.
I geuss these are some pretty decent points but I just dont see them as a benefit. I mean I've never built a deck to 28 and said, man I wish I could stop here. I generally get to 30 and then go oh shit there were 2-3 more I wanted to include. Then I have to spend a few minutes rebuilding. All though, I think its fair to say I'm not one of the best deck-builders. Maybe itll gain some prominence in some deck somewhere along the lines.
The Gadgetzan synergy is probably the best point and I would even add in that it might be interesting to try some kind of token Shaman with the Violet Teacher and FS. With either Gadget or VT it would be pretty situational but then I again I guess that puts it pretty close to on par with Preperation. But Prep has the benefit of letting you use it with anything that was already in your hand instead of just one luck of the draw.
The last part I just dont see how you can rely on that. If you get the right draw then yes, it gets something out way earlier than it normally would come out. But again, you have to give up tempo for a turn before you can use whatever awesome thing you drew. The bigger benefit in my eyes is the idea that you could have a one turn combo of any 8 cost Legendary like Ragnaros, Gruul, or Al Akir and Faceless Manipulator. Now that could end up being an amazing turn 10.
That's one of the biggest challenges newer players face in games where you can choose the number of cards in your deck. In 99.9% of the cases it's correct to include the minimum number of cards in your deck.
The reason for that is simple: Not all cards are created equal. There are always some cards in your deck that are stronger than others. By playing more cards than necessary you decrease the chance that you draw your good cards for no real benefit unless you draw your whole deck.
Incidentally, that's the main reason everyone was playing Novice Engineer back when he was a 1/2
I'm so glad there is prejudice against playing hunter/zoo/[insert FotM deck here]. People like that make the life so much easier for those of us who play to win.
Just something relevant:
@bdbrode Can you tell a story when u thought Kidnapper was a good card worthy of an Epic? Plz tell me it used to put any card into your hand
Ben Brode @bdbrode
@TheKIsEvil It used to cost 5, and it was WAY too good. I still think in the right deck it can be good (though frustrating).
Nozdormu wins you every game where you opponent has to go to the bathroom on turn 9.
I think the 5-mana to 6-mana jump is one of those thinks like 4-health vs. 5-health; the impact is far greater than the numbers indicate.
As far as I can tell the "right deck" is either the gimicky mill-deck or a Molten Giant deck - and in both cases, he'd be more likely to see use as an overpriced Brewmaster (though the option for using him as taunt clear remains).
So... I decided to try to build a deck with farsight and violet teacher and it is actually working pretty decently. A lot of the time farsight is just to make the deck artificially smaller and/or get 1 extra 1/1. It's not a fun and sexy use but it opens you up to getting to other combos. More importantly the dream combo is so insanely fun that I actually walked away from the game for a bit after pulling it off. Turn 3 farsight draws ragnaros. Playing against a Druid so I wasn't too afraid of hard removal so turn 4 I coined out my now 5 cost ragnaros. Then turn 5 I faceless manipulator for double rag.
I take back my hate on for it. I'm convinced that it could be used very efficiently. I don't think that I am there yet but I'm gonna keep tweaking until I am.
Because you are trying to conflate the academic meaning of theory with the common person's.
It's a bit of a trend that a lot of decks are tapping into 0 mana spells and gadgetzan. Spellpower + moonfire token druid looks quite powerful. Token shaman is another deck that is waiting to get made.
Yeah the success of Miracle Rogue makes people wonder if they can do similar things with other decks. I actually only threw 1 Gadgetzan in the token Shaman I am playing around with. That combo is nice but not really what the deck is about. In fact I find when I abuse Gadgetzan I end up over filling my hand and burning cards.
IMO it is more about strong control (which the Shaman of course excels at), Violet Teacher for swarm whilst doing that control, Far Sight to force the deck to be faster/give interesting combo options later and strong legendaries to finish. Mine is running with Rag, Ysera, and Onyxia. I know Onyxia gets a bad rap but she can be super useful against Zoo when Ive been delaying them all game long but their pressure just doesnt quit or when I just want to flood the board to give them something to worry about. I dont run Bloodlust (maybe I should but I found that I never used it in the dozen or so games I tested with it in) but when you see Onyxia come out from a Shaman Bloodlust leaps to mind and people will focus on clearing the mess of 1/1s instead of the 8/8.
All in all it is an interesting deck but it runs pretty expensive. If anyone is interested I will throw together the decklist and start a new thread in the Shaman forums. Then I will link it from this one. Ive not yet run it in ranked, only a couple dozen times in unranked, and Im only rank 10. So who knows if this idea could actually work at high levels but it seems like once I settle the deck down it will be pretty solid.