The less biased Great Joker Debate

[Odin1981]

I know I'm coming into this thread a way late but first to answer the question dgraz posed in the original entry of this post. I don't particularly like either joker however I understand a lot of US games are big on having a epic fail/win flip/diceroll etc. As a persay exictement factor.

I don't expect any change to either bj or rj and they don't break any part of the game. I also am a more statistic/anaylitical type player so I would prefer not to have either but unless I had a hedgefund or winning lottery ticket to start a game of my own oh well it ain't the biggest thing to worry about (I also understand that without either joker it might make the game alot more mathmatical that could turn masses of people off).

On the off tangent about the whiners complaining about the rj coming up on - flips tough deal with it its the one percieved weakness that only happens once a turn and is no way guarented to always happen on damage flips.

Cause you know what happens off the top of my head resser players 60-70% of the time on - flips? The answer is weak damage if you are gonna complain about that mechanic then honestly you need to play a different faction cause something that happens over a long run of flips 2/3 of the time is a great defense mechanism and reliable the only negative is that you have a increased equal chance of the either the epic fail card or epic win card showing up in a duel.

[Jonas Albrecht]

Why are they "whiners"?

[Odin1981]

In a shortwinded approach cause I really don't feel like breaking it down by math on my day off. It is this. It is a perception people feel because they feel a "defensive mechanic" should be a never failing mechanic that trivializes a very small % chance (less than 10% of the time) that is a drawback that they inheirantly will notice alot more often than when it works.

Quite a few people and I will even include myself in this cause I am guilty of this as well on occasion will always see when a mechanic fails and argue that it should never happen that way. But in hindsight this particular example is very minimal in each individual duel flip. However people don't remember what happens the majority of the time (when h2w works as intended) and only have a habit of bemoaning when it fails (be it severe/severe showing up or something/rj) acting like a scenario/talent/skill should be infallible and always work a certain outcome that only benefits them.

[Math Mathonwy]

In a shortwinded approach cause I really don't feel like breaking it down by math on my day off. It is this. It is a perception people feel because they feel a "defensive mechanic" should be a never failing mechanic that trivializes a very small % chance (less than 10% of the time) that is a drawback that they inheirantly will notice alot more often than when it works.

Quite a few people and I will even include myself in this cause I am guilty of this as well on occasion will always see when a mechanic fails and argue that it should never happen that way. But in hindsight this particular example is very minimal in each individual duel flip. However people don't remember what happens the majority of the time (when h2w works as intended) and only have a habit of bemoaning when it fails (be it severe/severe showing up or something/rj) acting like a scenario/talent/skill should be infallible and always work a certain outcome that only benefits them.

I'm "whining" because RJ is so rare and so drastic that it upsets one game out of three. If it came up every game I would have less of a problem with it.

[dgraz]

If it came up every game I would have less of a problem with it.

I don't believe I've ever seen that particular comment. I wish you would have said that sooner (although maybe you did and I just failed to catch it). That sentence makes a disgusting amount of sense. If it was every single game perhaps you could plan for it better but the fact that it only happens once in a while makes it an even worse surprise for you........and that creates a negative experience for you.

I'm not saying that I'm swayed to your side of the argument and I still don't believe that that necessarily means it should be changed , but I certainly understand much better now why you fight so hard about it.

[Math Mathonwy]

I don't believe I've ever seen that particular comment. I wish you would have said that sooner (although maybe you did and I just failed to catch it). That sentence makes a disgusting amount of sense. If it was every single game perhaps you could plan for it better but the fact that it only happens once in a while makes it an even worse surprise for you........and that creates a negative experience for you.

I'm not saying that I'm swayed to your side of the argument and I still don't believe that that necessarily means it should be changed , but I certainly understand much better now why you fight so hard about it.

Hooray - I managed to say something new about this!

I've tried to get this idea forth a couple of times, but it might've gotten a bit lost.

But seriously, thank you for posting that, it made my day :1_Happy_Puppet1:

[Guy in Suit]

Note though, that it is a valid opinion to just prefer the RJ as is - realize all the peculiarities it has and the huge swings it causes and then prefer it. That is valid. I do not agree with it, but I won't try to persuade such a person otherwise. But if people bring in faulty reasoning, like drawing lots of cards causes the deck's potential to dilute, I'll engage these logical fallacies and naively hope that by showing them as fallacies, people might change their minds. (Though in that case I was eventually exhausted when people without maths degrees don't bother to consider what I'm saying even after I tell them that I do basically this stuff for a living - that was a bit of a bummer, really.)

Condescension aside, what thread are you referring to? The last one I recall there were about 5 different people trying to explain how you were taking the wrong view towards how probability should dictate tactical choices made in the game and your response was yet another 'But I have a maths degree' and then you picked up all your marbles and went home.

I really don't see the poll result as that conclusive.

First of all, these sorts of polls are super-easily manipulated. A charismatic person talks about this in their gaming group and frames the discussion a certain way thereby convincing 20 of his friends to come and vote a certain way.

I see the tin-foil hat has found it's way to Finland!

And @Gruesome - nothing stops you from cheating down yourself to lower the chance of a RJ coming up. If you've already seen your opponents BJ pass through and he is clearly cycling cards by cheating down to barely hit you this could actually be a valid tactic to cheat yourself down even further!

But I think the best strategy by far is as Ratty suggests and just keep your master out of harms way - Seamus doesn't need to be close to influence the game - so he should generally avoid it.

[Math Mathonwy]

Condescension aside, what thread are you referring to? The last one I recall there were about 5 different people trying to explain how you were taking the wrong view towards how probability should dictate tactical choices made in the game and your response was yet another 'But I have a maths degree' and then you picked up all your marbles and went home.

I showed the math in multiple different ways but people weren't even considering it so I saw no reason to continue try to educate people who aren't interested in putting in even minimal effort to understand. I usually get paid to educate and the students are willing to listen - no interest in doing it for free for unwilling people.

You specifically kept moving the goal posts and changing the topic away from what the original claim had been but I had zero interest to engage you about those due to your obnoxious posting style.

I see the tin-foil hat has found it's way to Finland!

You're such a witty dude - a real asset to the forums.

Edit: I won't likely be responding to this (going to Norway with my wife for a week and leaving in a couple of hours) so feel free to masturbate whatever brilliant retort/trolling you wish to this thread.

Edited July 17, 2012 by Math Mathonwy

[Q'iq'el]

I showed the math in multiple different ways but people weren't even considering it so I saw no reason to continue try to educate people who aren't interested in putting in even minimal effort to understand. I usually get paid to educate and the students are willing to listen - no interest in doing it for free for unwilling people.

Perhaps you should simply consider the fact mathematics is only one of many factors involved here? Perhaps other are dismissive of it, because you put too much store by it?

There are four basic components to a game, or types of game: agōn, alea, mimicry & ilinx (according to Roger Caillois).

Generally not only games, but every type of cultural activity combines these components. When you watch movies or read books, they are at play as well.

For the purpose of Malifaux mimicry is mostly present in its roleplaying/fantasy element (connected with use of miniatures) and ilinx is generally non present (unless you start counting beer and sleep depravation as perception-changing elements of the game).

The two other are however of key importance: You seem to be very keen on the agōn element - the even field competition based on clear and fair rules known beforehand. On the other hand you dismiss completely alea - the game element which confronts the player with factors entirely beyond their control to see how they cope.

The very statement you made a couple of posts above, that you'd be fine with Red Joker appearances if those were more regular, because you could plan for it then, is the very proof of that thinking. You don't want to cope with factors beyond players control, you want to plan for them and go around them.

This is a mind-set problem. There are people who find joy in only one narrowly defined aspect of a game. These people play chess, run in marathons or gamble with dice - from sports to many of the classical games, there exist plenty of examples of the games where only one aspect has been refined and certain level of purity has been achieved.

However majority of cultural activity we do focuses on mixing these aspects of games in different proportions. This is the very act which makes the games engaging for multiple different people at the same time and, statistically speaking, great majority of population wants this level of complexity, rather than pure-form competition.

The results are not surprising, because they reflect this state of affairs. If you asked how many people considered playing chess seriously, in a group of miniature games, you'd probably get similar results (warning: pure speculation), because similar group of players would be attracted to the idea - players who think and enjoy the game the way you do.

And it's fine. You can even house-rule it and play with opponents who share your point of view on the game.

However the problem appears when there's an organized campaign to change the entire game, because it would allegedly make it better and math proves it. Better for whom?! Most of the people will find the game considerably more boring if you remove the alea aspect from it. Most of the people will find it less challenging too - sure, the planing skills involved in your preferred aspect of the game will dominate, but it so happens that suspense and dramatic feel the game gives comes almost entirely from the presence of the alea aspect of the game. Even the remote chance that something may happen keeps players praying for the right flip in their head, standing on the tip of their toes, and this makes combat and magic truly engaging.

So you want to take it away, because it disturbs your personal view of the "good game". Isn't that at the very least egocentric? Now you bring your superior understanding of mathematic as an argument to berate your opponents, but do you have the same understanding of the miniature gaming they have?

In the end we all have things we don't like about gaming. I'm personally big on playing with painted minis, on both sides of the table. I have to put that on the hook when I go to play in a club though, because people will bring unpainted or primed minis 100% guaranteed. We meet in the middle of way and you must realize that even if you hate being confronted with game-changing Red Joker Flip, your opponent may not only enjoy having to cope with it, but he may also have fun seeing how you deal with it and there's nothing wrong with that. They are not mistaken and they don't fail with math, they just enjoy the game and its different aspect - one which is just as important for competitive gameplay as well.

[Math Mathonwy]

Perhaps you should simply consider the fact mathematics is only one of many factors involved here? Perhaps other are dismissive of it' date=' because you put too much store by it?[/quote']

When someone makes a claim falsifiable by maths and then someone falsifies it, nothing else really enters into it. There most certainly are other aspects to consider in other situations wrt this game but here the claim was simple and easily disputed.

Yeah, no.

I don't like chess much.

I like random stuff. I don't like stuff being as random as you like it to be but that doesn't mean that I'm some sort of a soulless automaton who hates randomness. Please don't try to analyze me as such. Just like I'm not ascribing you to like only random happenstances and that you'd be just as happy with Snakes and Ladders (no strategy needed) I'd hope you'd extend the same courtesy towards me.

You utterly exclude the middle. It doesn't make for a useful discussion, really.

I've repeatedly said that I like the Red Joker. I don't like the extreme effect it has on damage on negative flips.

And you're painting me as wanting to turn Malifaux into chess. This is exactly the thing I chided Ratty for, but you decided to not only engage in it again but to amp it way, way up. I could understand some level of misrepresentation, but what you're doing seems like you're outright willfully lying, which I find extremely distasteful. And this isn't even the first or second time you've done this.

Please stop.

[Nyarlanthotep]

The problem is Maths keep on being brought into this argument. I read through 16 pages of this thread and both side bandy Maths around like it's a religious artifact. But what can Maths prove here.

1) Your more likely to get a Red Joker if you flip more cards.

This is true you are. Neither side has denied it.

2) Red Jokers are going to come up rarely, but are going to have a major effect on the game.

Again neither side of the argument are disagreeing with this.

3) Hard to Wound increases your chance of flipping Weak Damage

Again this is taken as read.

----------- That's about all that Statistics can tell you --------------

Yes maybe you could work out the chance of the Red Joker flipping in a given situation, and for some people this number may be too high, some people too low.

You could work out how much damage on average it causes, and again for some people this will be too high, and some people will be fine with it.

SO - After all this Maths what does it come down to, personal preference.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

So the real question is this. Does the chance of flipping a Red Joker negate the advantage of more flips in defense. Generally no it doesn't. Having Hard to Wound is on average better than not having it. It's an advantage. So taking personal preferences on the amount of randomness in the game and how much impact that randomness has out of the equation, as that is personal preference. All you can really ask is are models with Hard to Wound correctly costed for the advantage you get? Which really makes this whole discussion another "Are Rezers Rubbish" thread.

Edited July 17, 2012 by Nyarlanthotep

[Q'iq'el]

<cut>

I like random stuff. I don't like stuff being as random as you like it to be but that doesn't mean that I'm some sort of a soulless automaton who hates randomness. Please don't try to analyze me as such. Just like I'm not ascribing you to like only random happenstances and that you'd be just as happy with Snakes and Ladders (no strategy needed) I'd hope you'd extend the same courtesy towards me.

You utterly exclude the middle. It doesn't make for a useful discussion, really.

I've repeatedly said that I like the Red Joker. I don't like the extreme effect it has on damage on negative flips.

And you're painting me as wanting to turn Malifaux into chess. This is exactly the thing I chided Ratty for, but you decided to not only engage in it again but to amp it way, way up. I could understand some level of misrepresentation, but what you're doing seems like you're outright willfully lying, which I find extremely distasteful. And this isn't even the first or second time you've done this.

Please stop.

First of all I do not do any of the things you suggest I do and specifically not to you. I merely gave an example of chess as a game which purified one aspect of gaming. Automatons don't play chess, people do. It's a valid form of entertainment and one which helps develop important mental skills. It's important to provide certain context to one's way of thinking I believe... and extreme case examples serve well to frame the territory.

Secondly you assume I suggest you don't like random. It's not about random. It's about basic need for elements of the game to be beyond players' control. To say you like random, but only if it is toned down to a point it doesn't surprise you and you can plan for it is to say you don't like things being beyond your control...

Yet such is life and such is one of the four aspects of every complex game. Shouldn't really be surprising, because even though we think of games as form of escapism, they really serve adaptive purposes, as most entertainment does.

[Jonas Albrecht]

Point of order: Automatons do play chess.

[Q'iq'el]

Point of order: Automatons do play chess.

Since a very short while...

[Ratty]

However I doubt they do it out of love of the game. Anyone would think they were programmed to play it.

[Q'iq'el]

Right now them doing it is mostly a testament to how much we love the game.

[Jonas Albrecht]

However I doubt they do it out of love of the game. Anyone would think they were programmed to play it.

When will people learn that robots can love?

[Math Mathonwy]

First of all I do not do any of the things you suggest I do and specifically not to you.

Well, I suppose it's good to know that it is apparently involuntary, then.

You have a lot of habits that make conversing with you tiresome. One is that you quote people yet fail to answer them. Another is this need to frame others as extreme cases while you're the standard of moderateness. Finally, your habit of leaning towards the extremely grandiose makes conversations difficult since they turn from simple things to huge, sweeping narratives that stop making any sense when approached from the minute details that sparked the debate.

Consider these things and adjust.

It's important to provide certain context to one's way of thinking I believe... and extreme case examples serve well to frame the territory.

This conversation could be framed as being between players who like tactics and those who love beer and pretzels and then paint the latter group as complete nincompoops - you believe that would result in a fruitful conversation? Do you believe that that would accurately reflect the different points of view? I don't and neither does your framing.

We could add a Violet Joker that's a suitless seven except when it comes up on a damage flip - then it would ignore the normal damage track and kill both the attacker and receiver. You'd like that, right? You'd think that would be an awesome addition to the game? Why not? It would be glorious. For the Jokers to be a proper system, they need a synthesis to their current thesis and antithesis!

Or is that not a useful way of having a conversation, perhaps?

Secondly you assume I suggest you don't like random. It's not about random. It's about basic need for elements of the game to be beyond players' control. To say you like random, but only if it is toned down to a point it doesn't surprise you and you can plan for it is to say you don't like things being beyond your control...

Flipping all severes on a negative damage flip is also out of my control and results in quite a bit of damage in some cases yet it doesn't bother me.

Stop trying to apply this as some kind of a amateur psychoanalysis session and understand that I don't like the huge swings that Red Joker provides on negative damage flips. No more, no less. I'm not out to take away, say, Collette's marionette trigger or Gremlins' Dumb Luck or anything like that.

Edited July 17, 2012 by Math Mathonwy

[nerdelemental]

Seems we're now just circling our logic and rehashing the same points over and over and over. Usually by the same person(s). Boring thread is getting boring.

Here's some new observations:

~15.5% of the Forum players, having been politicked by a strong vocal minority (remember: we agreed that the only call for revision would be by people that wanted it the most) vote for change.

That's more than I'd love. But it's far, far below any level to bend to the will of some that do not appreciate a core rule mechanic that functions exactly as it was designed and intended.

Of that 15.5%, how the Joker might be revised is unclear, too. If the Poll originally read something like: -No Change; -No extra flip on weak; -remove Jokers from deck; -Red Joker does Severe +2 damage; -Red doesn't trump on Negative Fate; [and more options], then I believe we'd see even less call for any specific revision and a more clearly overwhelming vote for "leave 'em alone".

As mentioned elsewhere: we'll continue looking at anything that causes problems and we'll debate among ourselves and playtest anything. However, it's pretty unlikely we'll be changing it as dynamically as Math Mathonwy would like, I'd wager. We might. But it's a part of the game as it is. How it was intended and designed. How the majority want it to function.

Feel free to keep chasing your tail, here, as a few of you seem hell-bent on running as fast as you can without getting anywhere. But I'm having a lot of trouble hearing you over the sound of how boring this has become.

[dgraz]

Swoosh!! Nothing but net and that's the game! I believe I'm done here.

[Jonas Albrecht]

Feel free to keep chasing your tail, here, as a few of you seem hell-bent on running as fast as you can without getting anywhere. But I'm having a lot of trouble hearing you over the sound of how boring this has become.

Wellp, that settles some things for me.

[Dustcrusher]

But it's far, far below any level to bend to the will of some that do not appreciate a core rule mechanic that functions exactly as it was designed and intended.

As mentioned elsewhere: we'll continue looking at anything that causes problems and we'll debate among ourselves and playtest anything....ut it's a part of the game as it is. How it was intended and designed. How the majority want it to function.

Clue stick beating has been administered, as predicted.

I'm just going to reiterate that I appreciate seeing in writing that you guys are open to taking a second look. That's all I really wanted- consideration of a minority opinion, even if it's largely regarded as stupid or inane.

Swoosh!! Nothing but net and that's the game! I believe I'm done here.

As am I.

[nerdelemental]

Then let's continue this discussion at another time.

Maybe. It's super exhausting.

See. This man talks sense.

[Omenbringer]

When will people learn that robots can love?

When one starts humping my leg like a rabid chihuahua!!!