Deck size & Probability - A case for (slightly) bigger deck

**Gondorian** · 11-21-2011, 05:21 PM

I look forward to seeing where each of you climbs to in the rankings and with what deck size.

**MistahBoweh** · 11-21-2011, 07:14 PM

This is the whole point Atomzed, you said it yourself. You're trying to make do with an inferior strategy instead of making a new one or improving an already established deck. If you're going to write a strategy article about having fun, that doesn't really make sense, does it? Think of your audience. The people studying game theory are those who plan on using it to win games, to improve, to be the best they can be. Nobody wants a lesson in mediocrity.

**Atomzed** · 11-21-2011, 08:06 PM

Originally Posted by dndfreak

This is the whole point Atomzed, you said it yourself. You're trying to make do with an inferior strategy instead of making a new one or improving an already established deck. If you're going to write a strategy article about having fun, that doesn't really make sense, does it? Think of your audience. The people studying game theory are those who plan on using it to win games, to improve, to be the best they can be. Nobody wants a lesson in mediocrity.

Essfien was the top ranking individual and he ran a 41 card deck. Said something abt mediocrity huh?

So far, what you and Ringel are saying are points that I am aware of, but both of you has not say anything significant different that can changed my mind. In QM, when you cannot know what heroes you will be playing against, having that adaptability helps.

Of course, the same can be said of my arguments to you guys. I can't persuade you guys.

In any case, both sides have been extremely open in the discussion, so I hope the others can take the facts and draw their own conclusions.

**MistahBoweh** · 11-21-2011, 09:00 PM

You can have adaptability and still maintain a minimum deck size. In the future, hopefully, decks WILL need to adapt frequently to win. That doesn't mean it will ever be a good idea of running more cards than you're forced to.

Adaptability is a necessity when games aren't the same every time. Games don't play out the same when decks are less consistent. Decks are less consistent when you have more cards in them. You're saying that more cards in your deck creates adaptability, but having more cards in your deck is what makes that adaptability a necessity in the first place. Run less cards and you have less need to run more cards. It seems simple enough to me.

Aye, though, this discussion grows long. If you find naught in that to sway you then I'm afraid I have not much else I could say.

**A1 Otto7** · 11-21-2011, 09:39 PM

Originally Posted by dndfreak

Pretty sure enrage is for eladwen, not other warriors. I think you may be doing it wrong. Post the list and I'll show you a better list (IE one with 5 less cards)

*ofcourse Enrage

is for Eladwen!!

i meant rampage!

**Atomzed** · 11-22-2011, 02:18 AM

Originally Posted by dndfreak

You can have adaptability and still maintain a minimum deck size. In the future, hopefully, decks WILL need to adapt frequently to win. That doesn't mean it will ever be a good idea of running more cards than you're forced to.

Adaptability is a necessity when games aren't the same every time. Games don't play out the same when decks are less consistent. Decks are less consistent when you have more cards in them. You're saying that more cards in your deck creates adaptability, but having more cards in your deck is what makes that adaptability a necessity in the first place. Run less cards and you have less need to run more cards. It seems simple enough to me.

Aye, though, this discussion grows long. If you find naught in that to sway you then I'm afraid I have not much else I could say.

Actually DNDFreak, I do understand the points.

Just that i hold a more nuanced view that less cards is generally better most of the time. But running the probability shows me that in some of the time for some decks and for certain good cards, it may be ok to go beyond the min limit.

Whereas you hold a more absolute perspective, "Nope, a 39 card deck will always be better than a 41 card deck". I just don't buy that perspective that's all.

but it has been a good discussion, with certain perspective that i have not thought of. So its all good

**Ringel** · 11-26-2011, 03:55 AM

Well, there must be some optimal deck size for any given deck. I'm still skeptical that it is larger than 39[+hero], but it was an interesting discussion. I never did get around to that inclusion-exclusion probability exercise.

**KaiJ** · 11-27-2011, 06:57 AM

Rated 307 currently.
Honestly, in the long run you will just lose more games if you go over 40.

Probability is Nature's language. Understand it.
Respect it. Make sweet love to it.

Kai

**A1 Otto7** · 11-27-2011, 03:22 PM

that is true mate! Still probability is getting THAT card more often when needed. Excluding BF there is no card that (since i see a photo of Amber

let's say: ) a warrior will lose a game if it doesnt come on time. If it doesnt show up consistently enough it may be a problem of maths. U just dont pack enough of it or u pack a larger than 40 deck so it has less probability. Still there is one more chance! That is that it doesnt show up COUSE U DONT PACK IT AT ALL because u want your deck to be at 40 cards!!! A 4th destruction item is necessary,a second enrage is necessary, a second KP is necessary, a misplaced as a 41th card MAY be necessery as a survive-or-not-card in more games than you would win if u didnt have it and thus stayed in 40 cards in order to raise probability of not drawing another card's consistency. Do you know what i mean? There are some not autoincluded cards that it is not countable if they raise your win rate if included and exceed the limit if 40. Still not including them is also another nature's probability. And that is 0% of drawing that card

So let's just conclude that there are decks where an exceed in the limit of 40 is profitable (because they are capable of drawing many and they have great card pool.Guess what,these are the warriors!! Maybe the priests in 1.27) and other decks that it is not (a DC definately doesnt need more than 40 cards to kick your ass out!! An Elemental has a great card pool but sucks in card draw so exceeding 40 sounds not profitable). Many of the top20 decks are not 40limited!!

So let everyone decide for their own Hero and deck what is profitable.The fact is that every Hero is different and they dont all run under the same card redtrictions...

**xepa** · 03-23-2012, 09:46 PM

was this discussion continued anywhere??
it's a really interesting debate

I just want to start another point here, since the discussion of "having that crucial card" seems to not have a conclusion.

there are 2 posts here that point out that increasing draw engine conuter's having 44-45 cards (what means they've opted for having the crucial extra cards plus the draw cards)

so my point is, what if you have a minimum size deck and add 2 BS (or any other draw card)?
it would decrease your chances of getting your winning-game cards by 'normal drawing' but at the cost of some resources it would compensate by giving you more cards.