Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Pavitra wrote:
>> I flip my Salary to {Change,Change,Change,Government}.
>
> If we adopt the simplification (down to one deck), any thoughts on
> preserving the "choose your specialty" feature of draws? I really like
> that and it's being used and it really adds strategy and economics.
>
> My idea is just that the Dealor (or Accountor?) can define N "frequency
> distributions" with clever names like "Justice", "Change" etc. which would
> mimic the multi-deck effect (obviously players can't have complete control of
> their own frequencies or it would defeat the very purpose of "rare" etc.)
How about this:
Cards are sorted into discrete rarity classes (common, uncommon, rare).
Each player gets to build a personal Salary Deck. You must have at least
one card of each rarity class. The relative probabilities of the classes
are fixed (e.g., you will always have a 65% chance of drawing a Common
card, 30% of drawing Uncommon, 5% of drawing Rare). Individual card
probabilities are relative to the other cards in that rarity class.
I suppose this could be rephrased as follows: There are three decks,
Common Uncommon Rare. Whenever you earn a draw, the deck is chosen at
random according to fixed uneven probabilities; you can mark which cards
in a given deck you're interested in obtaining, and your draw will be
selected randomly from among the marked cards of the chosen deck.
I wonder if the probabilities of individual cards within a given
rarity-deck should be selected by the player or the Rules?
