Asteroid Mining Consortium

[FrankJones]

Trash tier. Most corps at least have a useful ability that lasts the whole game. Robinson gets a garbage ability that becomes totally useless pretty quickly with a very meh opening money count. Corp should at least come with a wild tag or something.

That's a bit hyperbolic. robinson is obviously weaker than the other prelude corps but is quite often a good pick. it's very often solid but almost never great.

Have you ever known me to NOT wax hyperbolic?



“You’re either first or last” ~ Ricky Bobby

Hyperbola ?????

That's the WORST function EVER !!!!

[xspuipuke]

Ellen X begs to differ—it's derived from her.

[Andrei3009]

That's a bit hyperbolic. robinson is obviously weaker than the other prelude corps but is quite often a good pick. it's very often solid but almost never great.

Have you ever known me to NOT wax hyperbolic?



“You’re either first or last” ~ Ricky Bobby

Hyperbola ?????

That's the WORST function EVER !!!!

You just haven't seen any really bad ones...

[HappyMeaI]

You can’t argue simple math. Hackers is also up there as one of the deadliest gen 1 HU plays but the value is far less.

Hackers is 3 to play 3 to buy, and 11 for sp power gen 1 for a cost of 17 credits, with those 17 credits having an inflation adjusted value of 44 credits by game’s end in an 11 gen game. Over 10 generations of production, adjusting for inflation rate each gen, it will produce 32 end game credits worth of value while also scoring a negative point and costing at least 1 more point from a missing heat bump. Hackers not only never returns its original investment value in an 11 gen 1v1 game, but it also scores -2 points in that time span. Hackers is, without question, one of the mathematically worst plays that can be made in the game of TfM. Even if we assume a cost of 13 and getting a cheap power to turn it on it’s still 33 credits in end game value made as the original investment and it’s never recouped.

AMC is the complete opposite end of the spectrum and can be a devastating gen 1 play that wins games outright. Hackers as a gen 1 play is generically about the worst of possible plays that can be made, fighting for maximal inefficiency alongside such plays as Heat Trappersing yourself or playing Indentured Workers into passing the gen or Energy Tapping yourself.

Sorry can you break this down for me like I’m a 5 yr old? To boot, we’d calculate a power as 7 not 11. Explain this “adjusted inflationary” cost and give me a comparison. Your calculation doesn’t include an adjusted deficit of our opponent.

Ofc. We don’t SP to play hackers. We would usually do it with an extra power or if we play smth like power generation.

To me this explanation feels like a copy pasta from some thread from like 5 years ago that doesn’t entirely math out. If it does math out, then why does every 600+ elo player I play against use hackers on me up to gen 4?

If it’s that egregiously inefficient, why are all the top players on this platform playing it?

[FrankJones]

Hackers. Interesting stuff.

So, in a game recently, I drew hackers as a free card, in a late generation. I could spare the energy, and I wanted to fund a mildly risky banker. So, I played hackers, at a cost of 1. (Free card, and the discount made is only cost 1 to play).

But really the cost was 2, right? I could have sold the card for a dollar. That's true of any randomly drawn free card.

So, even if we ignore the -2 MC to my opponent, since we don't know that it will matter, we can say that my cost was 0, since I immediately have 2 more MC at the start of the next gen. (Assuming that I was not 1 or 2 MC short of playing some other important card.)

Anyway, in the game in question, I ended up winning banker easily, and I went into final greenery phase thinking it was going to be a tie, and I would win the tiebreak.

Oops, no. The two greeneries my opponent placed (I accounted for these) also added one point to herbivores.

I lost by one point.

[jaymc1130]

Hackers. Interesting stuff.

So, in a game recently, I drew hackers as a free card, in a late generation. I could spare the energy, and I wanted to fund a mildly risky banker. So, I played hackers, at a cost of 1. (Free card, and the discount made is only cost 1 to play).

But really the cost was 2, right? I could have sold the card for a dollar. That's true of any randomly drawn free card.

So, even if we ignore the -2 MC to my opponent, since we don't know that it will matter, we can say that my cost was 0, since I immediately have 2 more MC at the start of the next gen. (Assuming that I was not 1 or 2 MC short of playing some other important card.)

Anyway, in the game in question, I ended up winning banker easily, and I went into final greenery phase thinking it was going to be a tie, and I would win the tiebreak.

Oops, no. The two greeneries my opponent placed (I accounted for these) also added one point to herbivores.

I lost by one point.

The pesky Hackers negative VP. Lol. Funny

[jaymc1130]

You can’t argue simple math. Hackers is also up there as one of the deadliest gen 1 HU plays but the value is far less.

Hackers is 3 to play 3 to buy, and 11 for sp power gen 1 for a cost of 17 credits, with those 17 credits having an inflation adjusted value of 44 credits by game’s end in an 11 gen game. Over 10 generations of production, adjusting for inflation rate each gen, it will produce 32 end game credits worth of value while also scoring a negative point and costing at least 1 more point from a missing heat bump. Hackers not only never returns its original investment value in an 11 gen 1v1 game, but it also scores -2 points in that time span. Hackers is, without question, one of the mathematically worst plays that can be made in the game of TfM. Even if we assume a cost of 13 and getting a cheap power to turn it on it’s still 33 credits in end game value made as the original investment and it’s never recouped.

AMC is the complete opposite end of the spectrum and can be a devastating gen 1 play that wins games outright. Hackers as a gen 1 play is generically about the worst of possible plays that can be made, fighting for maximal inefficiency alongside such plays as Heat Trappersing yourself or playing Indentured Workers into passing the gen or Energy Tapping yourself.

Sorry can you break this down for me like I’m a 5 yr old? To boot, we’d calculate a power as 7 not 11. Explain this “adjusted inflationary” cost and give me a comparison. Your calculation doesn’t include an adjusted deficit of our opponent.

Ofc. We don’t SP to play hackers. We would usually do it with an extra power or if we play smth like power generation.

To me this explanation feels like a copy pasta from some thread from like 5 years ago that doesn’t entirely math out. If it does math out, then why does every 600+ elo player I play against use hackers on me up to gen 4?

If it’s that egregiously inefficient, why are all the top players on this platform playing it?

I didn’t account for the impact on the opponent because, very rarely, is that ever even relevant. The opponent also would lose 32 end game value credits in that example, but since they made no up front investment it’s negligible if they have lots of cards, global discounts, a strong economy, or any other control over rebates and rebate generation (Stech, Media Group, Optimal, ocean walking, topsoil, meat industry, etc). The hit to the opponent basically only matters when they have nothing going on (in which case you’re already crushing them), otherwise it’s often completely negated by normal play patterns and the only relevant impact is the original investment you made to play Hackers. As for inflation, TfM includes an inflation mechanic. Your credits can acquire points cheaper early than they can late and the cost of an average point bought increases each gen. The generally accepted value (according to the data) is a 10%(ish) increase per generation. You can then use this information to account for the rising cost of a point over the course of a game and your early credits will be “more valuable” per credit than your late game credits.

When evaluating cards at baseline you always evaluate first based on the card alone. You can then see how much better using a variety of cards in combination is than the baseline by calculating different combos of card with each other. That’s why I also showed the calculation for an average cost of power in addition, and in that example Hackers STILL never returned its original investment value. You’d need to have truly free power or truly free Hackers (random card and you have -2/-3) for it to actually generate a profit and therefore translate into a positive point yielding play.

It’s not a copy paste, it’s just basic math.

And certainly if you’re having it played on you often then it means your early development patterns are problematic and vulnerable or perhaps rather unlucky. Certainly I don’t buy that “all the top level players on this site” are playing it on you constantly. I know all of them and they’re the ones who gave me the breakdown I provided you, so I know they aren’t playing it as frequently as you alluded. We will play it when it’s reasonable to do so, just like any other niche card, but that’s going to happen pretty infrequently.

[HappyMeaI]

You give a good long-winded, vague explanation of what most players already know. We know that the value of a point is worth about 5 mc at the beginning and 10 mc at the end.

I just am not buying your “basic math” on the inflation aspect which still negates the opportunity cost deficit your opponent will face which, when figuring in this “inflation”, means that you are really stunting their early game development.

Now I will agree with you from a spreadsheet perspective that a card like hackers is infinitely worse value than AMC. Given the right circumstances, it still poses as a deadly delta card HU gen 1.(Refer to my previous post for the basic math breakdown), There are more openings in prelude to play this card or AMC.

I’m unsure why you think a bad early development or “vulnerable” game style would have any impact on a random high elo playing hackers on me. There’s no dynamic established between myself and X player. They just instinctively know it’s a good play given their predicament.

Perhaps anecdotal, but I definitely think the meta right now involves playing hackers early on HU if you can. So, I’m not sure who these mastermind gurus of yours are that showed you the economics 101 page on TFM, but I believe they’re very wrong about hackers. (:

[primrose1234]

You give a good long-winded, vague explanation of what most players already know. We know that the value of a point is worth about 5 mc at the beginning and 10 mc at the end.

I just am not buying your “basic math” on the inflation aspect which still negates the opportunity cost deficit your opponent will face which, when figuring in this “inflation”, means that you are really stunting their early game development.

Now I will agree with you from a spreadsheet perspective that a card like hackers is infinitely worse value than AMC. Given the right circumstances, it still poses as a deadly delta card HU gen 1.(Refer to my previous post for the basic math breakdown), There are more openings in prelude to play this card or AMC.

I’m unsure why you think a bad early development or “vulnerable” game style would have any impact on a random high elo playing hackers on me. There’s no dynamic established between myself and X player. They just instinctively know it’s a good play given their predicament.

Perhaps anecdotal, but I definitely think the meta right now involves playing hackers early on HU if you can. So, I’m not sure who these mastermind gurus of yours are that showed you the economics 101 page on TFM, but I believe they’re very wrong about hackers. (:

You don't seem to be benevolent to him, yet you ask him to explain. Either you genuinely want an explanation, try being friendlier. Or you already set up your mind, no need to ask then.

[jaymc1130]

I believe they’re very wrong about hackers. (:

Look, you’re allowed to believe what ever you’d like. I don’t really know if I can make it any simpler than I have, but you asked for and received a proper explanation. I won’t be able to help a person with a closed mind come to an understanding so it’s not really worth my while to respond much at this point as you’ve clearly made up your mind about something and are unwilling to accept that it could be any other way.

Also, a VP costs roughly 3 credits gen 1 and roughly 7ish credits by the final gen. To me it looks like you’re pulling your notions from A Quantified Guide to TfM post on BGG that, despite being a popular post, has been proven to be wildly incorrect time and again for years at this point. That post has been responsible for the spread of so much misinformation it’s kind of crazy.

I’ll leave you with this as a final thing to consider abut Hackers vs AMC: When you AMC some one who spent 18 credits (46 end game credits of value) on gen 1 Vesta you’re completely blanking their play but they still spent that cash on the play, cash that could otherwise have been used to acquire 6 VP on average (by games end, showing why Vesta in general is a rather poor developing play to begin with) in addition to the point you score for playing AMC and the titanium you’ll produce (10 gens of ti prod with purchasing power to score another 4-5ish VP) . So for a 16 credit investment gen 1 you wind up netting something roughly around a 12 VP swing in your favor, but MOST of this VP swing comes from the fact that the opponent sunk 18 credits into a play that had a huge up front original investment cost that they can now never effectively recoup. Hackers is very different because you’re the only player making that significant up front original investment and the theoretical VP swing from playing it by game’s end -4/6 VP at baseline and closer to -1 VP with an efficient power (7 cost power). These are two cards that are prime examples of how opportunity cost translates into scoring, AMC hard punishes players for making inefficient investments into titanium (in the vesta example those 18 credits could have been spent differently to acquire roughly 4-6 points but that opportunity is now gone), and Hackers hard punishes the person playing it for making inefficient investments for cash prod (those 13-17 credits could have been to acquire 3-5 points but that opportunity is now gone). Hackers is a classic “noob trap” style card. Something that looks deceptively ok at face value and only when one digs deeper do they realize it’s ineffectiveness.