by AJzer
fbush555 wrote:
Help me understand how Marked Accounts can be effectively equal in value to PAD campaign over time. Shouldn't the expense associated with charging Marked Accounts mean it has significantly lower value than PAD over the long term?
It isn't. IRR doesn't account for the long-term gain of certain cards. It only makes comparisons between cards at the point where they pay for themselves.
notyetsuperman wrote:
IRR is one method for comparing the value of an economic card but its ineffective in NetRunner. At face value IRR shows the best investment.
I can't tell you often a hedge fund has been a bad draw in my NBN deck (it was quickly removed) but HF in HB decks are excellent.
calculation.
I can't tell you often a hedge fund has been a bad draw in my NBN deck (it was quickly removed) but HF in HB decks are excellent.
calculation.
It's not the answer. It's an answer, just one more look at making card value comparisons that accounts for one more feature of NR: bits now are better than bits later. It's not going to cover every feature of the card, its interaction in different factions, etc. IRR doesn't have to account for every possibility, nor does it have to fit exactly with the way it's used in finance to still provide useful insight. The math is broadly applicable.
The Lord of Space wrote:
Money now worth more than money later doesn't really apply too much to ANR.
In ANR, there is no such mechanism. Money now sits in your account.
In ANR, there is no such mechanism. Money now sits in your account.
I obviously disagree. Money now helps you set up your servers (or run early) to improve your chances of winning the agenda race. It's obviously dependent on your cards, but it's infrequent that I ever have a hand that I can do nothing useful with.
An easy comparison to make is the difference in usefulness of a Melange used twice for 14 bits, and PAD Campaign left running for 14 turns. Over time, they give you the same totals, but one is definitely preferable. Having 14 in 2 turns is better than 14 in 14. Comparing 14 in 2 turns within 2 turns, and 14 in 2 turns 10 turns later is different; it really depends on the cards you have in hand vs. what you will have 10 turns from now. But as I mentioned before, it's a reasonable assumption that you'll have something to help you in your hand at most times. We build our decks this way intentionally.
I think the issue here is people are looking for a single analysis that covers everything. You're not going to find it. Run a couple different ways of valuation, recognize the strengths and weaknesses of what they tell you, and make your call. It says something that many of the different ways of valuing these cards put the same cards at the top. So use the minutia, evaluate the assumptions, and remember these are models, not a mathematical representation of every choice possible. The nice feature of IRR is that it normalizes a comparison for a feature that is not usually accounted for in other valuations: the starting bit pool makes a big difference in the usefulness of the card. This was valuable insight that came from the IRR method. So was the discussion regarding time-value of bits, however we land on the matter.
There is no use discarding an illustrative abstraction simply because it doesn't cover everything.