Also, so many methods of program recursion have been added that putting a program in the heap isn't a big deal for those decks.

Like Quality Time, this was a card I really underrated initially because it is very nerfed from it's ONR counterpart (Organ Donor). In the end, it's a good card.

It pretty much turns every program in hand into an easy mark. Except itself.

So for one program, you're paying 3 CE for 2 credits, for two it's 4 for 4, for three it's 5 for 6 (Easy Mark level efficiency here), for four it's 6 for 8 (Sure Gamble level efficiency here) and with five it's 7 for 10 which is good.

Like Stimhack, it can be a desperate effort before that final hail Mary run.

The problem is that stacks with a lot of event rotation doesn't really have that much room for programs. Are you gonna take out your Sure Gambles to add programs for this?

It pretty much turns every program in hand into an easy mark. Except itself.

So for one program, you're paying 3 CE for 2 credits, for two it's 4 for 4, for three it's 5 for 6 (Easy Mark level efficiency here), for four it's 6 for 8 (Sure Gamble level efficiency here) and with five it's 7 for 10 which is good.

Like Stimhack, it can be a desperate effort before that final hail Mary run.

 

The problem is that stacks with a lot of event rotation doesn't really have that much room for programs. Are you gonna take out your Sure Gambles to add programs for this?

What do you mean by paying 3CE?

2 cards (the trashed program and the Contract itself) + 1 click = 3 CE.

One CE = one card, click, credit, installation, event play or run.

Now, those aren't all worth the same and their relative value can change during the game.

If you have, let's say, ten cards in hand (and, let's say, a max hand size of four or five), being able to exchange those cards for credits or clicks can be a very good deal for you even at a ratio less than 1:1.

So spending one click, two trashed programs, the Contract card itself for four credits can be great -- you're now at seven cards in hand, four credits richer, and only used one action to do so. Cards were worth "less" to you right then, because you had a hand overfull of them.

Similarly, playing Modded to bring out a card that costs even a single credit (outside of Kate) can be worth it. Let's say you mod out a Zu.13.

2 cards (the Modded and the Zu.13) and one click are exchanged away in order to get one Zu.13 in play.

Whereas normally, 1 card (the Zu.13 itself), one click and one credit would be exchanged to get that Zu.13 in play.

If you're in a situation (with an overfull hand, perhaps) where cards are worth less to you than credits, it's a good deal. One card became a credit without any overhead costs.

If you're in a situation where credits are worth less to you than cards, Quality Time can be a good card to you. It's the same 1:1 ratio trade (three credits, one card, and one event play for five cards) but you might have had a glut of credits and a lack of cards.

This is why spinning QTs and Sure Gambles can be an efficient mix.

One QT followed by three Sure Gambles: In the end, you've lost four clicks but gained nine credits and one card.

(You traded 3 + 1 + 1 + 5 + 1 + 1 + 5 + 1 + 1 + 5 + 1 + 1 for 5 + 9 + 9 + 9 = 26 for 32: you gained six.)

PS: I know there's backlash on counting the card itself. Most of the time, the comparisons give the same results as long as you're consistent. If you want to see Easy Mark as netting you 1, 2 or 3 is pretty much the same as long as you use the same method to determine whether you see Sure Gamble as netting you 2, 3 or 4. In either case, Easy Mark nets you one less (which is appropriate since it's much easier to play and more flexible).

PPS: There's also backlash against the whole CE concept. We're not saying that all the units are completely interchangeable. Sometimes you value cards more, sometimes you value clicks more, sometimes you value credits more. It depends on what other cards you and the corp have out and what the situation is. For example having an Opus out changes a lot -- an Opus out changes Sure Gamble from a great card to an annoying card, since you can spend one click to draw the SG and one to play it and net 4, or spend two clicks on Opus and net 4.

Ahh, Ok. I just had no idea what CE stood for.

PPS: There's also backlash against the whole CE concept. We're not saying that all the units are completely interchangeable. Sometimes you value cards more, sometimes you value clicks more, sometimes you value credits more. It depends on what other cards you and the corp have out and what the situation is. For example having an Opus out changes a lot -- an Opus out changes Sure Gamble from a great card to an annoying card, since you can spend one click to draw the SG and one to play it and net 4, or spend two clicks on Opus and net 4.

As well there should be. CE is a statistical nonsense once any actual deck hits the table, before cards are even played. CE claims are bad theory, supported by no data, proof that someone read the rulebook, but never put a card on the table.

CE can't make sense of such a straightforward effect as that on Mr. Li, and certainly not of Andromeda or MaxX . . . or even of the 5 cards drawn at the beginning of the game (or the 5 credits).

You can demonstrate this for yourself quite easily, next game you play: simply count the clicks you spend to draw cards and compare that to the number of cards you actually see. Do the same with credits.

It's never 1:1, ever.

As you see, CE is subject to many misconceptions and strawdoll arguments.

CE doesn't claim that it's 1:1.

CE doesn't claim that Mr Li, Andromeda or MaxX are bad cards. They're good cards.

CE doesn't claim to be all-encompassing or "the ultimate answer to everything".

All we're saying is that Easy Mark costs one card and one event-play and gives you three credits, Sure Gamble costs one card, one event-play and five credits and gives you nine credits and so on.

Sometimes you value cards more and sometimes you value credits more, so cards that lets you exchange -- even "at a loss" like a Freelance Coding Contract with one program -- can be good. That's two cards, one event-play exchanged for two credits. 3 CE for 2 CE, but the two CE that you get (credits) can be situationally more valuable to you than the three CE that you give up (cards and time).

Exchanging cards-for-cards can also be a worthwile trade, hence Mr Li. Not all cards are the same.

But sometimes CE thinking can be valuable, when comparing very similar transactions.

Access to Globalsec + Underworld Contact costs three credits, two cards, two installations. It'll take seven turns to break even and eight turns to make the same profit as an Easy Mark, nine for a Sure Gamble and it'll just get better from there.

Instead, playing one Daily Cast and one Easy Mark also costs three credits, two cards, one installation and one event-play, but breaks even in two turns. After four turns, you've gotten eleven credits, which would take eleven turns for AtG+UC.

Similarly, a Cyberfeeder breaks even after four uses in a non-Opus economy but takes six uses to break even in an Opus-economy, because that card and that installation could've been four credits instead.

That's not to say that Cyberfeeder or Underworld Contact are bad cards. First of all, their value -- an endless drip of credit -- can be more valuable than a big credit influx in a long game. Second of all, in the right situations, if you build your deck around it, their costs can be less valuable and their benefits can be more valuable -- like if you have cheaper card draw, cheaper installations etc.

PS

It's not proof that somebody read the rulebook and never put a card on the table. Nor is it bad theory with no data.

PPS

Demonstrating during play is indeed very valuable. You can see whether or not a Cyberfeeder or an Underworld Contacts etc was worth what you paid for them in a particular game or not, including the cost you paid for the card itself (which may well be cheaper than 1 click, if you're Max for example) and the cost you paid for the installation (which might, again, be discounted by cards such as Mass Install -- another 3 CE for 3 CE card, but as I've said, those can be great depending on how the various currencies are worth at the moment).

PPPS

If all you take home from CE thinking is that a card is a very real cost and the play of a card is also a very real cost, then I'm satisfied.

I can "spend" the card by playing it, or by burning through a Pup.

I appreciate the response. I did not in any way make claims regarding what value judgments CE makes (i.e. regarding whether Mr. Li is good, for example). I made the claim that CE has no idea how those cards actually affect the game.

Nonetheless, there's nothing above, or in any other CE screed, that passes for actual statistical analysis. Actual statistical analysis, which can make legitimate claims about probability and efficiency, comes up with quite different answers from CE arithmetic.

When CE starts accounting for such basics as the initial draw or the starting credit pool, it'll gain a bit more credence with individuals who understand statistical modeling. Until then, what it passes off as analysis will continue to look like non-contextual guessing.

I continued the screed over at Mr. Li's page.

Click Equivalency is not useful for real statistical modeling. It is however useful as a general heuristic, particularly when comparing two very similar cards for purposes of efficiency.

It is true that it is difficult to measure the value of drawing a card or clicking for a credit or clicking to play an event or clicking to install something as the value or impact of a given option is relative and also contextually bound within the framework of the game as it is being played (i.e. board state).

It is also true that you can generally determine that a card that grants $2 or more credits for 1 click is potentially more efficient than clicking for  $1, with the efficiency going up in correlation to the # of additional $ being accrued per click. However, other factors such as up front costs, restrictions on when the card can be played, necessity to first draw the card, etc must be considered as well to determine playability, and CE does not address this and is thus of limited use overall. CE also does a poor job of indicating the true value of cards that stick around on the board and have a long term affect on the game.

I think it is fair to say however, that if a card has a good CE it may prove to be generally good after more comprehensive analysis, or empirical evidence, or even just anecdotal evidence with sufficient community vetting to support it. However, if a card has bad CE, it is reasonable to treat that as a red flag against the card...nevertheless the same comprehensive analysis. empierical, anecdotal, etc should still be applied as many cards have questionalbe CE but are still playable in some or even many decks.

Dwight D. Eisenhower is quoted as saying, "In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable."

Similarly, "fuzzy logic" rules of thumb or constructs such as CE are pretty useless in the context of an actual game as it is being played, but such mental tools can be useful if they help an individual player craft or hone their decks, with the burden of proof of the efficacy of such idiosyncratic methods being in the win / loss columns of that player's subsequent games.

In other words, if thinking about CE helps a player make decks that win, then it has some value to that player even though the technique is not rigorous enough for someone preferring a more strict or nuanced form of modeling.

Having said all that, the reason this particular card is only "meh" despite offering the potential for a 1 click yields $10 bonanza is that it is not a common occurance to have 5 programs in hand which have no value in hand and thus can be trashed without impact.

To make maximum use of this card one would need a lot of card draw and many programs and built-in tolerances to ensure that NECESSARY programs somehow make it onto the board (either via redundancy or recursion or both). That pushes a lot of weight onto deck construction, and crowds out other cards...including other econ cards that might make money with less overhead or deck building constraints. During actual play, it will occur that you draw this card but feel obligated to hold onto it over some number of turns waiting to accrue the sweet spot of 5 excess programs, which will both delay the infusion of $ thus stalling your econ and also crowd out your hand thus limiting your ability to acheive card advantage.

Thus, while potentially powerful this card is also awkward and impractical. It's a high maintenance card, basically...and there are less awkward econ options available. Nevertheless, the sheer efficiency of the card in OPTIMAL conditions does allow it to be situationally playable in a deck designed to leverage it. Thus it has a place in noncompetitive formats. It also has natural synergy with heavy recursion decks, and in such decks its flaw becomes a virtue and thus it has more utility in that context.

I briefly used this card after O&C came out in a Shaper Professory deck. The poor Prof quickly proved himself to be not yet ready for prime time and I disassembled the deck to try other options. However, in the few games I played with the deck I did manage to make some respectable money off of FCC a few times. But mostly it was just dead in my hand as I had insufficient programs in grip to feed it or else could not afford to lose one or more the programs in my grip. But a Quality Time followed by FCC was typically a nice jolt of $$$.