Resource Optimization Hypothesis

**Secruoser** · 11-12-2014, 04:43 AM

Hi all, I'm experimenting with this hypothesis for resource optimization in building a deck. I'm sure as all would have known, we should not have too much of a card with a particular cost, but how much is too much? What should you do with a handful of 4cc or above cards in T3?? Why did you left 2 resources unused after casting a Mind Control

at T7?

Let's look at some of the common minimum resource needed for most decks: 6cc. With 6cc, you can summon a 6cc card (more common than 7cc cards) and some other combinations. Note that in these examples, two assumptions take effect.

Assumption 1: You play at most 2 cards each turn before T7.
Assumption 2: You try to play more 2cc cards than 1cc cards (harbinger, puwen, carniboar, CoI, Eleanor

, frostmare, bladedancer, pack wolf, nightshade, fatebreaker, bad santa, tome, etc)

Observe this chart:

The RESOURCE column shows the total resource you have in every turn from turn 1 onward, assuming that you sac a card every turn. The USAGE columns show different combinations on how you can optimally use the total of resources that you have on each round. The FREQUENCY column shows how many times the cards of a particular cost could be summoned within the first 6 turns. At the bottom of the FREQUENCY column it shows the total number of cards with all the possible combinations used in the first 6 turns. For example in this chart the total number of cards is 15, but since the minimum cards you need in SE is 40, we multiply that number to a number above and closest to 40, which in this case is 44 (22 x 2). Now with that multiplication factor, we multiply it to the frequency for each particular card cost, and you will get these numbers:

1cc = 5 frequency x 2 = 10 cards
2cc = 6 frequency x 2 = 12 cards
3cc = 5 frequency x 2 = 10 cards
4cc = 3 frequency x 2 = 6 cards
5cc = 2 frequency x 2 = 4 cards
6cc = 1 frequency x 2 = 2 cards

Total = 45 cards (with hero, and a 2 multiplier for 22 cards)

Now if we use this method for a 5cc deck and a 7 cc deck:

Total = 46 cards (with hero, and a 3 multiplier for 15 cards)

Total = 59 cards (with hero, and a 2 multiplier for 29 cards)

Observation
From this hypothesis, we can observe that if you have 16 3cc cards for a 6cc resource deck, it's not so optimal as compared to 10 3cc cards, because you won't get to use all of them, whether for sacrifices or summons, at least in the first 10 turns (which most games end in anyway). This is much like the famed 'resonance curve' except that we begin near the peak due to the nature of 2cc drops in most turns. Of course, the charts shown can extend to turn 8 onward (of which you can repeat the patterns from earlier turns) like in turn 8 you can actually repeat the pattern of T4 twice, or possibly a T5 + T3 pattern. That's where all the multiplied cards come in place. We can also observe that while the minimum number of cards to run in a deck is 40 and the chance of getting a particular card is higher, it might not be the most optimal in terms of resource usage. Decks that run with a higher resource naturally requires more cards in the deck to support the sacrifices as well as the optimal resource usage per turn. That's why we should not dedicate just one card to one goal and not depend on a 40-card deck for luck.

Based on the charts with the cards of specific costs allocated, the hypothesis observes that all resources will be used optimally (no resource is left on each turn and you will not lose early board control). Combine this with your card choices it should form a deck that reduce the wastage of card slots to serve your goals. When you take jlbjork's All Purpose Deck Theory into consideration we can assume to be able to fill all possible holes in a >40-card deck with this resource optimization hypothesis.

**FDL** · 11-12-2014, 05:51 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like you assume that every resource spent has the same impact and I would disagree with that.

1cc cards are usually utility cards that have marginal effects unless they're placed in the perfect situation. I would certainly never consider running 10 of them as your first table suggests. So while you can indeed play them every turn of the game, they're basically a source of card disadvantage most of the time.

You would have to work relevance in you formula. 1cc allies are playable all game long, but their usually on relevant on T1.

2cc allies are relevant on T2, underwhelming later. 2cc abilities can hold their water for the whole game.

3cc cards have the best power level + flexibility to cost ratio in the game. Good 3cc cards are beter than the sum of a 1cc + a 2 cc card in resources AND, most importantly, in actual cards. They remain relevant all game long.

4ccs are also utilities that only shine in specific situations. Playing a good all around 3cc ally on T4 is more efficient than spending the full 4 resources on a situational card.

5ccs are usually slightly more powerful than 3ccs but not being playable early is a big knock.

6+ccs are bombs that end the game in the right situation.

If you would redo your table for a game of average length, 10 turns, with a frequency of 1 for 1ccs and 3 or 4 for 2 cc s, I think you'd get something closer to the classic SE deck composition with a heavy preference for 3-5 cc cards.

**Reliant** · 11-12-2014, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by FDL

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like you assume that every resource spent has the same impact and I would disagree with that.

1cc cards are usually utility cards that have marginal effects unless they're placed in the perfect situation. I would certainly never consider running 10 of them as your first table suggests. So while you can indeed play them every turn of the game, they're basically a source of card disadvantage most of the time.

You would have to work relevance in you formula. 1cc allies are playable all game long, but their usually on relevant on T1.

2cc allies are relevant on T2, underwhelming later. 2cc abilities can hold their water for the whole game.

3cc cards have the best power level + flexibility to cost ratio in the game. Good 3cc cards are beter than the sum of a 1cc + a 2 cc card in resources AND, most importantly, in actual cards. They remain relevant all game long.

4ccs are also utilities that only shine in specific situations. Playing a good all around 3cc ally on T4 is more efficient than spending the full 4 resources on a situational card.

5ccs are usually slightly more powerful than 3ccs but not being playable early is a big knock.

6+ccs are bombs that end the game in the right situation.

If you would redo your table for a game of average length, 10 turns, with a frequency of 1 for 1ccs and 3 or 4 for 2 cc s, I think you'd get something closer to the classic SE deck composition with a heavy preference for 3-5 cc cards.

Agree to that. The impact for having the RIGHT card for your actual turn is very more important than to have every turn's ressources beeing used.
As Baduuru player i am very often in situations, where i do not play cards just to save them for later and more effective combinations.

For pure theory and meta game math it's an interesting post though.

**Pteronophobic Wizard** · 11-12-2014, 05:31 PM

+1 to FDL

Although I do think that shattered fates added a lot of 4cc allies that are better on turn 4 than 3cc allies. Also turn 4 is often reserved for draw (IGG

, Wizent's staff, tainted oracle, Wrath of the forest, etc.)

**bobrossw** · 11-12-2014, 05:57 PM

One other important consideration: If your goal is to be able to consistently be able to play a 6 or 7cc card in a game, then having 2 may not be enough. What if you draw both in your opening hand? Will you resource them both? What if you're Boris

and they're King's Pride

? Similarly, I like to have several 3cc allies to choose from in my opening hand, depending on my opponent I will happily resource some.

Not being able to play all of your cards in a game is not a bad thing, if some go to the resource pile (for example, nightshades vs Banebow

) then it's often a good thing. Having more 3cc cards than you hope to play is generally good as well, since you can resource a few to keep other more important cards without ruining the meat of your deck. If the plan is to have optimal plays at all stages, then it winds up feeling like your game is putting together a puzzle, where you keep getting pieces out of order. Sometimes you'll have all 1ccs in hand, and sometimes it will be a 2cc and a 5cc and you've only got 3 resources. Those things will happen no matter how you design your deck (except for the hand full of 1ccs, you have to make a weeny deck to get that).

In my current Serena

deck, I've got 8 weapons and 4 IGGs. I know it's horrible for my resource curve to have so many cards at 4 and 5 cc in a deck, but it's crucial that I have a weapon when I need it, and that I get consistent draw. All of those nuanced considerations factor in to make deck design as much art as it is science. They make it nearly impossible to come up with systems that work generally for the whole game, especially considering the variety of heroes, cards and play-styles available.

I do applaud you for trying though and I think that your system may be helpful just in terms of getting to know your deck a little more deeply. In the same way that graphing the resource curve can help. Both of these can then be used combined with testing, experience and intuition to develop and tweak decks.