Card Rarity and "finite" vs "infinite" deck of cards

[Lt Bull]

Only recently, by reading the forums, did I learn that this game actually mechanically tries to keep track of each one of the set of 76 "virtual cards" that are dealt, played and discarded by players throughout the course of the game, just like it would be in the real (original) card version of this game.

Given that this is the case, then the "Rarity %" as seen on each virtual card when a player right clicks it (eg. Ace Card Rarity 4%) , can be very easily considered ambiguous and misleading (as it was for me before I read the forums) as well as a bit inappropriate when considering other ways in which this Rarity information could have been represented.

AS it stands now, that "Rarity %" value you see is only relevant (applicable) if you were to consider it as the % probability of drawing that card from a COMPLETE stack of all the 76 cards together. That "Rarity %" figure becomes increasingly meaningless to you the deeper into the deck of cards you go. It is especially meaningless if you don't know the size of the deck you are drawing the cards from.

I would suggest that if (considering the Ace card for example Rarity 4% = 3 cards) the Rarity figure was instead represented by stating it as something like "3 out of 76", it would serve two purposes. It would immediately draw attention to the fact that there are in fact 76 discrete cards in a deck and that there are only "3" number of that kind of card in the deck. If the PC game is trying to be a direct conversion of the card game, then as a card game player, you would fore mostly know that there are "exactly three Ace cards in the deck of 76 cards" than thinking of it in terms of "roughly 4% of the cards in the deck (of what size I don’t know) are Ace cards".

On to a related point of interest and discussion, more to do with game design fundamentals, a kind of "what if" scenario.

As we all know, "card counting" would probably be viewed by many as an undesirable "skill" that can be acquired by players of games that rely on a drawing a cards from a finite deck. It's one of those funny things. If you can count/track cards a little bit, it will improve your game, and no one would care. But if of you actually excel in it, you might become a master at the game yet even be called a "cheat" if people knew how good you were and no one would think it fun to play you anymore. Casinos ban such people from their establishments.

This is just a side affect of any games that rely on "drawing cards from a finite deck" like DIF does. Ultimately, any finite deck size card game is restricted to this limited (almost rudimentary, maybe primitive) form of "random number generation" capability. However, with the advent of computers, the possibilities of random number generation possibilities have become virtually unlimited.

I understand that the designers of DIF PC may have deliberately intended (as far as I can tell) for the PC game version to be near as identical in gameplay to the original card game, and therefore, also down to the way it handles "random number generation" (ie. randomly selecting cards from a finite deck with tracking and reshuffling etc.) and so have designed it the way it is, "warts and all" so to speak. It's still a great game don't get me wrong.

However, I am interested to know from a gameplay/balance point of view, hypothetically, how differently would DIF play out IF the virtual cards were dealt from a "virtual INFINITE stack of cards" instead of the way its is handled now.

ie. what if the Rarity % we saw on the cards WAS ACTUALLY THE same probability of drawing that card at any point in the game?

It may seem like a minor thing but there are several interesting implications that can be immediately pointed out:

</font>

• 1) it would totally eliminate any from of "card counting" techniques for players to get the upper hand (excuse the pun).</font>
• 2) It would also result in much more variation/unpredictability in the kind of cards that would be/wouldn't be drawn by players eg. you might play a whole game and an Ace card may never be drawn by anyone, as unlikely as that may be, or conversely, someone may even draw a hand full of Aces, though not impossible, extremely unlikely (to be dealt five cards and for all of them to be Aces with a 3/76 chance of being dealt an Ace each time, for example, the probability of that occurring would be (3/76)^5 = 0.00001% )</font>
• 3) From my limited knowledge of programming, it would much easier and less complex to implement this kind of random number generation into a computer game (eg. no need to keep track of previously selected random numbers to help determine the probability of selecting the next set)</font>
• 4) Perhaps it could be considered a more "natural" way of conducting random number generation given the game really is trying to simulate a real infinitely random event like aerial combat. It can be argued that combat pilots didn't do anything that approached "counting cards" to gain an advantage, but relied on their natural instincts, wits and knowledge of all the possibilities available to themselves and to their enemies.</font>
• 5) It could be argued that if the DIF PC game was designed from the ground up without it having a legacy of originally being a card game (or without knowledge of finite deck random number generation techniques), then the card drawing algorithm would of surely operate like the infinitely sized deck I have been talking about. Given the choice, I can't see how or why anyone would feel the need to gravitate towards a random number selection model based on a seemingly arbitrary finite stack of 76 cards like it is now. Are there some advantages that I may have overlooked?</font>

Hypothetically speaking, I would be fascinated to know how different the game would feel and play if it did have this kind of infinite deck random card generation mechanism.

Anyways, if you are intrigued by game design, game mechanics and numbers, I hope you find this topic interesting. I would be interested to know if anyone has considered this or has any thoughts on it.

Cheers

Lt Bull

[ January 27, 2006, 05:43 AM: Message edited by: Lt Bull ]