Let's talk about Luck, especially as a cost.

[CrabHelmet]

Most people would agree that this card would not be banworthy:

 

Jar of Avarice

[Normal Spell]

Draw 2 cards. Send 1 card from your hand to the Graveyard.

 

(If you do not think that this card should be banned, then you're one of those idiots who thinks that the only problem with Graceful Charity is that it activates Dark World effects. In that case, this topic will be too difficult for you to comprehend; press the "Back" button on your browser immediately.)

 

Now, consider this card:

 

Reckless Avarice

[Normal Spell]

Roll 12 dice. If all twelve are "6", then draw 2 cards and send 1 card from your hand to the Graveyard. Otherwise, you lose the duel.

 

Most people would agree that there is nothing banworthy about the second card; however, with a little luck, the second card's effect is identical to that of the first card. This shows that "Luck Is Not A Cost" is nonsense.

 

What else shows that "Luck Is Not A Cost" is nonsense? A rational attitude toward OTK's. There are a multitude of 5-or-fewer-card combos in the game that can OTK.

 

Here's one: Fusion Gate + Chain Material + Fiend's Sanctuary + Catapult Turtle.

 

Here's another: The Agent of Judgment - Saturn + Celestial Transformation + Inferno Reckless Summon + Sanctuary in the Sky + Poison of the Old Man.

 

Here's another: Mataza the Zapper + Axe of Despair + Axe of Despair + Axe of Despair.

 

I could go on for days, but I won't because there's no need. The point is that a player lucky enough to open with a certain combination of cards can OTK easily. The only way to prevent this would be to expunge every such combination, which would be a ridiculous undertaking that would do far more damage to the game than good.

 

This all derives from the basic fact that Luck and Skill are both always going to be factors in the game - the former cannot be entirely removed. If the game were based entirely in Skill, then a more Skilled player would defeat a slightly less Skilled player every single time. This is, of course, preposterous - any banlist under which a Skilled player with the worst Luck possible can defeat an infinitesimally less Skilled player with the best Luck possible with perfect consistency is purely fictional. The goal of the banlist is to minimize the impact of Luck while maximizing the impact of Skill, not to exorcise Luck entirely. It's a card game. The Luck can be constrained, but anyone who thinks it can be obliterated is kidding themselves.

 

Thus, Luck is acknowledged to have its place in the game. It follows that Luck can be used as a cost in certain situations, since Luck cannot be removed. But when can Luck be used as a cost?

 

Consider this card:

 

Reckless Avariciousness

[Normal Spell]

Roll 12 dice. Unless all twelve are "6", draw 2 cards and send 1 card from your hand to the Graveyard. Otherwise, you lose the duel.

 

Note that the probabilities have been reversed between Reckless Avarice and Reckless Avariciousness. Whereas the former is almost certainly perfectly acceptable, the latter is virtually identical to Jar of Avarice, and is almost certainly banworthy.

 

Many believe that Sixth Sense and Snipe Hunter are banworthy, while cards like Sand Gambler and Cup of Ace are perfectly acceptable. But what if we take a balanced effect and exaggerate it?

 

Take Cup of Ace. What if each outcome resulted in a player drawing three cards instead of two? What about five cards? What about twelve? If one of these would be banworthy, then why is the two-card version acceptable? And could we alter the probabilities for the banworthy ones in order to make them balanced? Would a one-in-three chance of success be fine? One-in-four? One-in-six? Coin flips have better support that die rolls, so would simply switching the method of the random choice be fine? Where does a 50-50 shot of each player drawing X cards become unacceptable, and what probability would be fine for a Cup of Ace with an X-card draw? What if success let you draw X cards, but failure let your opponent draw X+10? (Let's make all of this optional for the opponent, since we won't want mill strategies to come into play here.)

 

Is it possible to devise an effect for a Normal Spell so overpowered that no probability is low enough and no downside is bad enough to balance it out? If so, what effect would that be? We already have a Luck-based Pot of Greed. We have several Luck-based Raigeki's with legs. Considering the Normal Spells you could be running, Destiny Hero - Diamond Dude is a Luck-based Raigeki-crossed-with-Harpie's-Feather-Duster with legs and a bunch of support, even if has a one-turn delay. How drastic does an effect need to be before it is irredeemable by Luck?

[Megaworm]

If the luck is too easily obtained, such as:

 

Roll a die. Destroy cards on the field equal to the number on the die.

 

Limit worthy, or banworthy.

as opposed to:

 

Roll a die and call it. If you call it correctly, destroy cards on the field equal to the result on the die.

acceptable luck.

 

 

Flip a coin and call heads or tails. If heads, draw 1 card. If tails, draw 2 cards.

 

Banworthy.

 

Flip a coin and call heads or tails. If called correctly, draw 1 card from your deck. If not, discard 1 card.

not banworthy.

[CrabHelmet]

If the luck is too easily obtained' date=' such as:

 

Roll a die. Destroy cards on the field equal to the number on the die.

 

Limit worthy, or banworthy.

as opposed to:

 

Roll a die and call it. If you call it correctly, destroy cards on the field equal to the result on the die.

acceptable luck.

 

 

Flip a coin and call heads or tails. If heads, draw 1 card. If tails, draw 2 cards.

 

Banworthy.

 

Flip a coin and call heads or tails. If called correctly, draw 1 card from your deck. If not, discard 1 card.

not banworthy.

[/quote']

 

You seem to be saying that Luck is acceptable as long as any sort of downside exists, as opposed to Luck simply being used to determine the extent of the positive outcome.

[Zeppeli Gyro Supreme]

Well, there isn't exactly a way to determine where the line's drawn. You'd have to have a supercomputer capable of measuring impossibly amounts of probabilities to figure that out, because, quite frankly, this whole game has so many freaking variables to it that it confuses most of those who play it. That's why they have Judges, and card rulings.

 

But if you look at it one way, there is no way to make an effect too powerful to be outweighed (other than removing its effect entirely) unless the card itself created a paradox.

 

Pot of WTFOMG

Normal Spell Card

This card cannot be negated. You win the match. If you do not win the match by this card's effect, you win the match.

 

At least, that's how I see it. Cup can be seen as balanced, as it has just as much chance of working against you as working for you. But it's also possible, with luck, that you'll never see a problem with flipping and drawing 2 cards. However, if you did end up doing this in a tournament, I'm sure you'd be disqualified due to suspicions of cheating. So I guess its balancer is "I could get kicked out if I'm too lucky". lol

 

I don't think that there should be more luck-based cards that give more kick for their effects. The only upgrade they should get, if any, is an increase on the chances of their luck.

[Valkyrie Lupia Blitzer]

Megaworm is correct for the most part. (Fire Darts ftw)

 

If the luck is "obtained" easily and the resulting effect is broken, then it's banworthy or limitworthy. (Snipe Hunter)

 

If the luck is obtained easily and the resulting effect isn't broken, then it isn't banworthy. (Fire Darts)

 

If the luck isn't obtained easily and the resulting effect is broken, then it isn't exactly banworthy. (Arcana Force EX - The Dark Ruler)

 

If the chances of getting the effect and the effect itself are crappy, then it certainly is a crappy card.

 

But there are also circumstances when a powerful effect and easy chances aren't going to be insta-broken. (Gatling Dragon)

[CrabHelmet]

Everyone is speaking in extremes here.

 

Let's look at Cup of Ace. If we were to change it so that you draw 3 if you win the toss but your opponent still only draws 2 if you lose the toss, would it become banworthy? Alternatively, if we gave it the same odds of success as Snipe Hunter, would it then become banworthy?

[Zeppeli Gyro Supreme]

Everyone is speaking in extremes here.

 

Let's look at Cup of Ace. If we were to change it so that you draw 3 if you win the toss but your opponent still only draws 2 if you lose the toss' date=' would it become banworthy? Alternatively, if we gave it the same odds of success as Snipe Hunter, would it then become banworthy?

[/quote']

Well, I was just answering one of your questions >>;

 

I would say that it would become banworthy. Snipe Hunter's not banned probably because it requires both luck and skill to a certain degree. Though in this case the skill is only the ability to have cards in your hand, and know which ones to drop off when.

 

I think Ace of Cup would be bannable at that point. I'd think of it like activating both effects at once. So it's like saying "Draw 3 cards and your opponent draws 2 cards." Alternatively, with that one bull whatever card, you would both lose 1000 each. That's an even effect to me.

[Valkyrie Lupia Blitzer]

Everyone is speaking in extremes here.

 

Let's look at Cup of Ace. If we were to change it so that you draw 3 if you win the toss but your opponent still only draws 2 if you lose the toss' date=' would it become banworthy?

 

[b']I wouldn't think so. After all, it's only a 1-card advantage from the other possibility, and stuff like that is Skelengel, Dekoichi, Jar of Greed, Legacy of Yata, etc.[/b]

 

Alternatively, if we gave it the same odds of success as Snipe Hunter, would it then become banworthy?

 

Maybe.

[Megaworm]

no, it would not be banworthy if your opponent benefits from your loss.

 

Look at Chainsaw Insect. A 2400 ATK Beatstick with no negative setbacks for it's power, but it allows your opponent to draw a card if you destroy a monster. They could possibly benefit from your beatstickage.

 

Same thing with Cup Of Ace. If you lose it isn't going to bring your demise (Gamble) or give you a single-edged effect (Pot Of Greed), it just benefits another player in the game which isn't as guilty as most cards.

 

Sixth Sense is banned because it is difficult to get the matching result either way, but if you happen to, you draw cards. Anything to do with the word Draw is usually banned. (Yata-Garasu, Pot Of Greed, Disk Commander, Sixth Sense, Mirage Of Nightmare etc)

[Valkyrie Lupia Blitzer]

1.) it would not be banworthy if your opponent benefits from your loss equally.

 

Look at Chainsaw Insect. A 2400 ATK Beatstick with no negative setbacks for it's power' date=' but it allows your opponent to draw a card if you destroy a monster. They could possibly benefit from your beatstickage.

 

Same thing with Cup Of Ace. If you lose it isn't going to bring your demise (Gamble) or give you a single-edged effect (Pot Of Greed), it just benefits another player in the game which isn't as guilty as most cards.

 

2.)Sixth Sense is banned because it is difficult to get the matching result either way, but if you happen to, you draw cards. 3.) Anything to do with the word Draw is usually banned. (Yata-Garasu, Pot Of Greed, Disk Commander, Sixth Sense, Mirage Of Nightmare etc)

[/quote']

 

1.)

Small Gain, Large Loss

Normal Spell

Toss a coin and call it. If you are correct, you win the Duel. If you are wrong, your opponent gains 100 Life Points.

 

2.)

DNA Checkup.

 

3.)

Dekoichi the Battlechanted Locomotive

Skelengel

Jar Of Greed

DNA Checkup

Pot of Avarice

Legacy of Yata-Garasu

Silent Magician LV4

Dark World Dealings

Allure of Darkness

Super Rejuvenation

Destiny Draw

Trade-In

Card Trader

Reload

Magical Mallet

Fragrance Storm

Lighten the Load

Precious Cards from Beyond

Appropriate

Crush Card Virus (limited, though)

Deck Devastation Virus (however, it's somewhere on the banlist)

Eradicator Epidemic Virus

 

There are lots of cards invloving draws that aren't banned. They completely outnumber thiose which are banned.

[Megaworm]

1.) it would not be banworthy if your opponent benefits from your loss equally.

 

Look at Chainsaw Insect. A 2400 ATK Beatstick with no negative setbacks for it's power' date=' but it allows your opponent to draw a card if you destroy a monster. They could possibly benefit from your beatstickage.

 

Same thing with Cup Of Ace. If you lose it isn't going to bring your demise (Gamble) or give you a single-edged effect (Pot Of Greed), it just benefits another player in the game which isn't as guilty as most cards.

 

2.)Sixth Sense is banned because it is difficult to get the matching result either way, but if you happen to, you draw cards. 3.) Anything to do with the word Draw is usually banned. (Yata-Garasu, Pot Of Greed, Disk Commander, Sixth Sense, Mirage Of Nightmare etc)

[/quote']

 

1.)

Small Gain, Large Loss

Normal Spell

Toss a coin and call it. If you are correct, you win the Duel. If you are wrong, your opponent gains 100 Life Points.

 

2.)

DNA Checkup.

 

3.)

Dekoichi the Battlechanted Locomotive

Skelengel

Jar Of Greed

DNA Checkup

Pot of Avarice

Legacy of Yata-Garasu

Silent Magician LV4

Dark World Dealings

Allure of Darkness

Super Rejuvenation

Destiny Draw

Trade-In

Card Trade

Reload

Magical Mallet

Fragrance Storm

Lighten the Load

Precious Cards from Beyond

 

There are lots of cards invloving draws that aren't banned. They completely outnumber thiose which are banned.

 

And that's why you shouldn't agree with me.

[Guest Chaos Pudding]

Don't talk about Sixth Sense and "difficulty" in the same sentence when I'm in the same topic. God, I'm still having flashbacks to my duel with Crab Helmet...

 

Anyway, I treat "Luck is not a Cost" the same way I deal with pornography: I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.

[Megaworm]

Anyway' date=' I treat "Luck is not a Cost" the same way I deal with pornography: I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.

[/quote']

 

that is EPIC.

 

I will sig that for all time.

[tonisanoob]

lol espunge :L!

 

wellw hat about

 

roll a 6 sided diece, if the result is a 6 you lose the match if its other than a six draw 2 cards thn discard 1

 

id say that was acceptable

[Lemniscate]

 

Many believe that Sixth Sense and Snipe Hunter are banworthy' date=' while cards like Sand Gambler and Cup of Ace are perfectly acceptable. But what if we take a balanced effect and exaggerate it?

[/quote']

 

This is where your arguement fails. By exagerrating the effects, you would also have to conversely exaggerate the odds. so if the card Cup of Ace's effect becomes for you or your opponent to draw 3 cards, then the probability for the positive effect to acitvate would have to become either 2/6 or 1/6 by rolling a dice. Thus balancing the card.

In your hypothetical you stated to exagerrate the cards, but then in your example, you exagerrated the ability, and not the probability, thus making your arguements irrational and useless.

[CrabHelmet]

 

Many believe that Sixth Sense and Snipe Hunter are banworthy' date=' while cards like Sand Gambler and Cup of Ace are perfectly acceptable. But what if we take a balanced effect and exaggerate it?

[/quote']

 

This is where your arguement fails. By exagerrating the effects, you would also have to conversely exaggerate the odds. so if the card Cup of Ace's effect becomes for you or your opponent to draw 3 cards, then the probability for the positive effect to acitvate would have to become either 2/6 or 1/6 by rolling a dice. Thus balancing the card.

In your hypothetical you stated to exagerrate the cards, but then in your example, you exagerrated the ability, and not the probability, thus making your arguements irrational and useless.

 

You have in your hands a scroll of unknown origin! Roll a Literacy Check to attempt to read it.

 

You roll a 3.

 

After a minute's perusal of the strange symbols, you declare that the parchment's text roughly translates to "my hovercraft is full of eels".

[Zeppeli Gyro Supreme]

Evil, you missed the entire point of him exaggerating the effect.

[Lemniscate]

The only reason the point is exaggerated is to show that luck is a cost, which (duh) is true.

I was speaking to the rationale of exaggerating the effect and not the probability.

This thread would only become relevant should a movement of cards as illustrated in the first post be made. As no card such as "Reckless Avaricousness" exists, there is no reason for this thread. I was merely illustrating that. And was next going to suggest that this topic be put away until such a time as it becomes relevant to the current game.

[CrabHelmet]

The only reason the point is exaggerated is to show that luck is a cost' date=' which (duh) is true.

[/quote']

 

As usual, the point flew right over your head.

 

I was speaking to the rationale of exaggerating the effect and not the probability.

 

And that's where your inability to read properly comes in to play.

 

You go to the back of the class.

 

This thread would only become relevant should a movement of cards as illustrated in the first post be made. As no card such as "Reckless Avaricousness" exists' date=' there is no reason for this thread. I was merely illustrating that. And was next going to suggest that this topic be put away until such a time as it becomes relevant to the current game.

[/quote']

 

If you would prefer not to think, the "Back" button should be somewhere near the top-left corner of your browser.

[Lemniscate]

If you prefer not to spend time on topics which are relevant, you can leave.

 

Also, the purpose of this site is to discuss subjects that are relevant to the CURRENT GAME, not whatever-you-feel-like-i-just-want-to-waste-time-with-subjects-that-don't-matter-right-now topics.

 

also, if i'm so stupid, you might want to speak slower, i might not understand otherwise.

 

(can you detect the sarcasm)

[CrabHelmet]

If you prefer not to spend time on topics which are relevant' date=' you can leave.

[/quote']

 

You're too stupid to even understand how ridiculous this statement is, although I hope that even you can see what a pathetic excuse for a comeback it is.

[Zeppeli Gyro Supreme]

What's with all the people getting egos lately? >>

[CrabHelmet]

What's with all the people getting egos lately? >>

 

They need balance between their ids and-

[Lemniscate]

okay, fine then let's discuss the topic.

 

1) Luck is a cost, that is self-evident

2) Luck can be a deciding factor in games, also self-evident

3) People always attempt to minimize Luck, again self-evident

4) In answer to your original question, Luck does not neccesarily need to balance an effect, merely to give an illusion of over-balancing it.

If people (without analysis) believe a card to be overly risky, they will not play it. That is why good cards like Magic Cylinder are not played. Magic Cylinder is a good card, but people don't use it for fear of not successfully activating its effect. The same is true with Luck. If people believe that the chance of the effect are too unlikely, then they will not play it, whether or not the probability is low or high.

 

This shows the part of the equation that you were missing in your initial analysis, the common man. The person playing the game, your initial theories forgot to include the stupidity of the masses, most players do not analyze cards to the extent as to fully understand their actual probability, instead relying upon their gut feeling.

 

This connects to Game Theory

the idea of self-interest

there are four types of self-interest,

• Real Self-Interest: Self-Interest derived from analysis of greatest possible reward

• Perceived Self-Interest: Self-Interest derived from the expected actions of the other player

• Practical Self-Interest: Self-Interest derived from analysis of risk vs. reward

• True Self-Interest: Self-Interest derived from the analysis of risk vs. reward based on expected actions of the other player.

 

most people will utilize the middle 2, your assumptions rely upon the use of the last one or first one.

[JesusofChaos™]

You talk about 4 card OTKs however when does the number of cards required for OTK become too few. Eg IIW+ Quillbolt (in grave so i dont count)+ Tuner on field+ mass driver