Right, no one would ever take me on a challenge of $10k deck -vs- stock deck at $1k / pt. I doubt they would even do that deal with a $300 deck -vs- stock deck.

You can play Tiger Woods, use his clubs, and give him rentals, and he'd absolutely destroy you.

I'm not sure where my argument is lost here. I simply pointed out that people play MtG for many other reasons than symmetry, which was meant to be a counter to Grue's thoughts about his results in symmetry from the database he has. I used Magic as one example, but I could have picked many other popular games, like anything from a casino. Note the similarity here. The games themselves aren't inherently asymmetrical, that imbalance occurs because of how the odds are set.

A real-world example:

If I don't like fish, it wouldn't matter how much money I spend on sushi, I won't enjoy it.

If I love fish, I'm probably okay eating pre-made sushi from the store shelf.

The MtG audience is a super-dedicated Sci-Fi / Fantasy crowd. Despite any flaws in Magic or any board game dedicated to this crowd, the fanbase enjoys being in that world. Add in bragging rights, a social atmosphere of like-minded people, and collectibles, and you have a popular game, regardless of the intrinsic symmetry or balance of it.

Can you explain how roulette or BJ is a game is anymore of a game than flipping a coin and tallying points? (ETA: To expand on this there is no opposition. These are competitive games like have been discussed. You don't seem to realize this which is why you keep bringing up this absurd and silly example.)

I don't think you understand the context of this and have conjured up your own crazy worldview absent of any information about the subject.

Beyond that, no turn based game is "symmetrical". (Whatever the **** that means.)

Wolfram,

While you littered your posts with fallacies, misunderstandings, and comments that belie a massive lack of understanding, we can agree that daveT is wrong. He is wrong because there is no mathematical ideal of "game" or whatever he is talking about. He doesn't understand the math terms, much less game design. While this is totally tangential, this is a topic I weirdly know a ton about and wanted to help inform people on. However, it appears everyone here is an expert on the basis of... making **** up? I don't know.

It doesn't help that most people don't have the most primitive understanding of the terminology.

... why hasn't Zynga totally destroyed Mattel? Why have none of Zynga's games withstood the test of time?

I'm simply arguing that "fun" and "fair"* are orthogonal in many games. I truly have no clue why this is so difficult to grasp.

* "symmetrical," "even," idc what the "correct" term is.

You're very fond of making these huge claims about my arguments without any further explanation.

Just simply saying "your argument is terrible, laughable, pitiful etc." doesn't make it so. You need to actually use logic to prove any of your claims.

What about if he only gets a putter?

Free to play and play to win are not the same. I explained this clearly.

You seem to misunderstand this fundamental concept and went off on an absurd tangent due to the fact you really just don't know the very basics.

You can't refute banana+2=*!@&# with logic. That is essentially your argument. I'm trying to educate you, but you're too arrogant and ignorant to understand the subject or your limited knowledge. It is pretty basic Dunning-Kruger.

I said that they weren't the same.

Citation needed, yet again.

...the irony...

I was originally going to write "put put club."

I'm guessing Tiger woods would averages 10 under par, and the average handicap is 16. Can Woods beat the average person by 26 points using a putter in a non-handicap round?

I know I'm toast because there's no way my golf is anywhere near average handicap. (never played)

Could you quote where this occurred? I'm really struggling to understand how you managed to litter so many misunderstandings around a quality core idea. (That is daveT being utterly and totally wrong. lol @ Tiger being +10 handicap.)

dave,

Stick to examples you know. Prime Tiger might have been +10. He almost certainly can't swing a club at the moment, and definitely can't finish a competitive round.

Also that comparison of Zynga and Mattel is weird. Supercell is a way larger company that produces 4 games at the moment. Mattel doesn't just make games, they make toys. I mean... wut? This is like talking about casino games in the same context as competitive games. I honestly don't know where you come up with this stuff.

Usually, conversation go better when you don't slice and cherry pick sentences and reply to them out of context. It also helps if you don't use that twisted misinterpretation to bludgeon someone with overarching declarations of their stupidity / ignorance.

I also don't like to spell out every single nuance, so please stop being purposely dense. You know ****-well I meant the GAMES of Mattel -vs- the GAMES of Zynga. Supercell isn't creating **** that will be around for 10 years, much less 100 years, so who cares?

You have not once rebutted my initial point. I've rewritten it a million times, yet your prefer the cross-talk about "math" while you refuse to simply acknowledge the psychological and social things I'm raising.

In any case, I'm not in this conversation anymore.

yes, yes you are

More people play Clash Royale than Monopoly (maybe ever?).

I don't get your comments. They just seem bizarre and out of touch. Your initial point seemed to be that games need to be "fair" without defining fairness, then you ranted about single player casino games, then something about symmetry without knowing what the word means. That is literally all you've said while interjecting the word math randomly to add gravitas to the argument.

Okay. So you didn't actually retract that comment? It seems like you spoke up on a subject you don't really understand, got educated in a way that offended your delicate sensibilities, and are now just furiously trolling since no one else has a clue about the subject so they don't realize how dumb you're making yourself look?

Is that accurate?

Could we drill down to what forest I'm missing for the trees? I'd be happy to learn something if you think there is literally a single thing about game design that you understand that I don't.

For once you are right. I am trolling now. Why? Because I realized that its pointless for me to try to argue with you in good faith, cause you won't return the courtesy.

Have a nice night.

I can't argue with you, you don't know enough about the subject to have an argument with.

Probably not, hard to get real numbers but 30 million a day seems to be the number for Clash, monopoly has sold over 250 million copies. Any kind of usage assumptions for Clash of Clans would probably also apply to monopoly. I'd say individual players still goes to Monopoly. Pick a game that wasn't a classic 100 year old game and you'd probably be right though.

Just for the record, I'm generally ****ty at golf and I could destroy prime Tiger if he just gets a putter. But then again, we wouldn't be playing golf.

I'm a terrible put put / mini-golf player. I'm pretty sure my handicap on the kid's course, if there was one, would be 50 points. Using that as my only reference, I'd guess Tiger would beat me pretty easily.

If I want to break up with someone during a truly embarrassing date, I'll consider playing again.

I think the course would be a big factor. You throw in quality hazards, rough, and some narrow fareways and I would agree. But if you go to some small course with relatively easy hazards, short rough, and I think it might be closer than you would think. Versus prime Tiger any way.

I can't think of any course I've seen or played where prime Tiger would have any chance.

What's the average distance he's going to be able to hit? He's definitely going to have ****ty accuracy. And of course there are just going to be some situations that are either impossible for him or like guaranteed multiple shots to get out of.

Not to come off defensive , but if you think this is the only reason for mtg's success you are definitely mistaken. The competitive scene was a crucial part of its lasting success. IDGAF about the pay to win semantic debate, but wolfram is a lot more correct here in that you just have to make some initial investment in order to be "competitive" and there isn't really a sliding scale. For example if I was jumping back into the game right now, I would find a deck by some means and start testing it on mtgo, investing like 400-1k prob (some of which is likely recouped btw). I would be on a level playing field with everyone else in effect, other than skill-wise.

Also, nobody has mentioned limited mtg. This seems like the "fair" format that daveT is looking for. Anyone who doesn't know: limited is where all players begin with unopened packs and either there is a draft of the cards of some sort or the packs are just opened themselves, and everyone creates a deck from their pool of cards. So absolutely even footing going in resource wise.

Here's a youtube video with some professional golfers doing driving with a putter. The numbers are around 200m.

As someone who doesn't know anything about golf, is that good? What would someone get with a standard driver?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTaKhGLB-Ds

looks like there are higher numbers, up to 350m or so, but idk what that even means.

Yes, I'm surprised how far they were able to hit it.
Average pro hits his driver around 270-300.
Average par 4 is around 400 yards, so 2-3 shots would get them there. What would really be tough with a putter is hitting shots 30-200 yards. Very hard to get it up in the air and judge distance.

along those same lines tennis pro Andy Roddick beat a guy using a frying pan

Andy Roddick beat me with a frying pan is a book by that guy that has lots of interesting takes on the what ifs of sports.

That's crazy. If I only held a frying pan for 15 minutes, I wouldn't be able to lift my arm at all. This guy swung one around for a whole tennis set.

It's easy to underestimate the level between amateur and pro in certain fields.