Printable View
The fundamental question is this: Is there a 41 card deck that has a higher win percentage than a 39 card deck? The exact percentage difference doesn't matter. Even small percentages grow over multiple games.
I'm still skeptical such a deck exists, largely because I'm having a hard time picturing a deck where there's nothing you can take out.
Your question cannot be answered by looking at the deck size alone. Other attributes such as the player skills and the opponent skills will make a difference to the win percentage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ringel
Or to be more specific, deck size along is not the only consideration for the success of a deck.
There's always cards that you can take out... but always at a cost to the associated goal. I think a better question should be "Does SOME 39 card deck become better/worse with the insertion of 2 cards?"
Um... stating the obvious here. Is there any 41 card deck in the hands of the most skilled player will win more often than a 39 card deck in the hands of the same player facing the same opponents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomzed
Some 39 card decks become better by the insertion of 2 cards. But can they be made better still by the removal of 2 more cards? That is the question.Quote:
There's always cards that you can take out... but always at a cost to the associated goal. I think a better question should be "Does SOME 39 card deck become better/worse with the insertion of 2 cards?"
Associated goal?
Your deck should only have one goal. To win. Period. Every card in your deck should let you win before your opponent, either by slowing them down or speeding yourself up. There are cards for each purpose that are strictly better than others. So there are always cards that you can afford to remove which will improve the overall win %.
If its same opponent (i.e. you spar with a particular player using the same deck), then a 39 deck will consistently be better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ringel
But if its same population (i.e. same group of ppl, playing different decks with differing strategy), then i say that a 41 deck, being more adaptable, may bring you more consistent success in the population.
It's a decision that only the player can answer. But removal of cards will mean that you lose the cards required for the particular goal, example less cards for item destruction, making your deck a little weaker against weapon/armour heavy decks. Example you originally have 4x smashing blow. Removal of 2x smashing blow means you draw your smashing blow later, and if draw it on starting hand, you cannot afford to sac it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ringel
All roads lead to Rome, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by dndfreak
Again, i referring to the Rule of Six by Cruxx (cruxx, i giving you free publicity!) Each deck has different considerations. Removing of cards from 1 area reduces the chances of meeting those considerations. See example i gave Ringel above.
I emphasise again that the article was NOT MEANT TO be a generalisation. I'm arguing that some decks are better off with a slightly higher deck size, but that doesnt equate to all decks being better off with a higher deck size.
My view is in contrast with DNDFreak and Ringel (i think) opinion that ALL decks are better off with the min deck size.
I can create a fictional deck which could be improved (based on earlier examples)
You have a 39 card deck where every card is equally valuable. You are perfectly happy to draw any one of those 39 cards. However there is another card out there: The "Kill Logan" card which if you have in your deck and you face Logan means you win. No matter where that card is. However that card is totally worthless against any other hero.
If you include that deck you have 40 cards. Against most heroes it is slightly less powerful than the original 39 card deck. Against Logan it is much more powerful that your 39 card deck. No one else notices the Kill Logan card so you face a high percentage of Logans. Now your 40 card deck is more powerful.
Okay, could you improve your deck by removing a card? I would contend no-- since all your 39 cards are equally valuable, removing any one wont improve your draw any, and in fact will make the draw of the dead card more likely against non Logan heroes.
However, I run into this problem with the example (aside from the "Kill Logan" card which no one notices). In a 39 card deck, is it really possible to have 39 equally valuable cards? I contend that such a deck doesn't exist. There are always slightly weaker cards you can remove.
I'm not contending the first, but the second. Of course it is possible to build a deck that is smaller and better vs. a particular foe. I think there is always a 39 card deck that is better against enough opponents so that it will have a higher win rate than a 41 card deck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomzed
Right, but is there some combination of cards you can remove. If you are depending on too many 4-ofs, is there an 8-of you can reduce to a 7-of?Quote:
It's a decision that only the player can answer. But removal of cards will mean that you lose the cards required for the particular goal, example less cards for item destruction, making your deck a little weaker against weapon/armour heavy decks. Example you originally have 4x smashing blow. Removal of 2x smashing blow means you draw your smashing blow later, and if draw it on starting hand, you cannot afford to sac it.
I'm keeping an open mind. But yes, at the moment, I think all decks are better off with the min deck size-- or rather all competitive decks are better off with the minimum decks size. That is, there is no deck you can't improve by reducing it to the min. deck size.Quote:
I emphasise again that the article was NOT MEANT TO be a generalisation. I'm arguing that some decks are better off with a slightly higher deck size, but that doesnt equate to all decks being better off with a higher deck size.
My view is in contrast with DNDFreak and Ringel (i think) opinion that ALL decks are better off with the min deck size.
There are always cards that can be removed, yes. Do you call them weaker cards? I probably call them cards that is of lower priority.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ringel
And do you agree that removing that cards reducing the effectiveness of the associated goal?
Example, a 39 card deck which has a good combi for
1) weenies
2) heavy arty
3) board control
4 item destruction
5) card draw
You have worked out a good proportion of cards in this tuned deck. Won't subtracting cards from weenie, makes you less effective in weenie? And that will mean that the 5 goals outlined above, 1 of them will no longer have as many cards in that area.
I said before, the cards may not be for 1 situation or 1 match-up only.
What you just described is the EXACT complaint that I had about what people will take from that RoS article. You have ONE goal, one consideration. You also have ONE way to win, often in 1-2 parts. That could be cheap allies and burn, fatties and weapons, fogs and wbt, you get the idea. Whatever the case is, you only NEED one thing, your way to win. If a deck exists with a faster way to win, or a way that directly interferes with it (such as DC), then you need to find room to hate that out, yes. But if one deck is the only deck that beats you naturally, then that's the ONLY deck you need disruption for. If you're playing a deck that naturally loses to multiple popular heroes/strategies, stop adding cards and go play a better deck. Do you see what I'm saying? The typical list runs 24-32 slots dedicated to winning the game. The rest is hate and draw engines. Cards like CB, retreat, shriek, acid jet, all of them are best suited for specific decks. Your own deck should already be well suited to face specific decks, so you don't need to have disruption against them and can easily afford the cut.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomzed
@Atomzd:
Do the top Logan, etc decks really have carefully balanced 5 goals? I don't think so, but I don't have the decklists.
Yes, i understand what you are saying. I just think its a waste to change a deck (or hero) if it can be tweaked to fit into the meta. And personally, i don't like to play T1 heroes so i have to find ways to deal with them. I have a particular hero build that i can tweak to beat DC consistently, but i cant' beat Eladwen with it. I have a particular hero build that i can tweak to beat Eladwen consistently but i can't beat DC with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by dndfreak
So do i change the hero? based on what u suggest, the answer seems to be yes.
@ringel, I won't increase the deck size beyond 39 for logan, see my post below :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomzed
I missed this if you posted a link earlier. Do you have a deck list for your Logan?
Sorry if what i write has already heen mentioned but i only read a couple of posts and just wanted to add my opinion.Small decks are sure more consistnt still there are certain drawbacks that you cannot ignore if u go pro.For instance my Boris decks has certain winnies for early board control together with Aldon and banner.Sime jasmines cause it is an autoinclude.Still i so need a couple of biggies for other games.So 2-3 worms for those Gwens and Mages (i definately cannot defeat a Gwen only with winnies), and 1-2 Aeons for Human warriors and mages!!Ofcourse i need KPs so like it happens with every expensive key card i put 2!4 BFs and 4 smashing blows for those wulfies!!1-2 shrieks against Logans,Portals or evem to remove the full moon on the crucial late turn.all these end up at 37-38 but i still want so much to include 4JDs for early rush,so they are in also.I could stop here but that would lower my percentage of drawing an early BF.So 3 BS and i end up with 44 cards.Do i feel bad??NO cause i count on drawing machines and i have got to include them,plus dozens of games prove if u are right or wrong.Since we all carry so many 3cc allies (does anyone carrys less than 8??) it is sure they ar gonna get drawn soon enough.The problem usually comes with 2cc and 4cc drops cause yhese are the ones played less.Usually 3cc drops are so many and 5cc drops are drawn cause u already used a drawing machine,so the real probkem is at 2cc and 4cc.In fact only 2cc cause if u deal with your drawing machine you double the chances to hit that 4cc card on the 2 turns comming next.
Ankther exame is a Rampage.I asked myself "do i need it so much?I mean i am supposed to establish board control and kill by it,do i really want to spend 4cc for a little giveback??I didnt do it on Biris yet but i did it on Logan who doesnt have retreat and may suffer some turns being hit.This raised my deck by 1.All my warrior decks are 42-44 cards and it feels impossible and inconsistent to go with less cause i have some 4copies of cards but i have many just duplicates of a card so lowering them to 1single copy would be inconsistent
1.28 is a version that needs so many draw engines and item destruction.Add sime allies and some side cards and u get a little above 40 just because the total draw cards and item destruction cards that are added comparing to 1.27 are more than 10!As simple as that...
I guess you are trying to demonstrate to me that there's always a possibility to swap out cards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ringel
Let's try priests instead, since resurrection is a good card.
Look at Jerry's decklist . Assuming that because of the current meta, I have the following build:
3x Kris
4x Puwen
4x Jasmine
3x Aldon
2x Sentinel
2x Oracle
2x Raven
3x Aeon
4x Tidal Wave
4x Wizent's Staff
2x King's Pride
4x Healing Touch
4x Destroy Arms
Decided to have 4x Healing touch, to give me that additional chance of healing against Eladwen burn. Need 4 DA because of Logan/ Amber and their weapons. DA is also important against DC to destroy his items.
And I argue that adding 2 Resurrection into this deck *may* be a good idea. Because it gives you that added flexibillity in 1) facing mill decks and 2) complementing it with King's Pride as you are guarantee allies for the next few turns after resurrection.
Ok Ringel, now let's see which cards you will swap out for resurrection.
I'm not so skilled a player that I can tune a deck at a glance, but it gives a foundation for discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomzed
Is this your deck? I'm not sold on the idea that adding Resurrection into the mix is a good idea. Currently the only mill deck is DC and how much are you improving yourself vs DC compared to hurting yourself against everyone else? In practice how often is this deck milled?Quote:
Let's try priests instead, since resurrection is a good card.
Me neither. But i thought its a good place for discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ringel
Nope, not my deck. its Jerry (the URL is indicated in my previous post). Have never played it :P purely theorycrafting.
Anyway, i guess my arguments don't hold sway with you and DNDFreak. Actually all 3 of us are recycling our points:-
1) atomzed points: a) the difference in probability in card draw is very low b) the option to use a certain good card may be worth the drop in consistency
2) Ringel and Dndfreak: a) the drop in consistency is not worth the additional 2 cards as options b) you're better off adjusting your deck if you really want to accommodate the 2 cards.
And to some extent, I agree with the points brought up by you and Dndfreak. For the coming tourney, i will try to tune my deck to 39 cards. Will make some guess on the likely dominating meta, and reduce cards that are not effective against the meta. And hope i don't meet those heroes that the removed cards would help in :)
But in QM, i will still consider increasing my deck beyond 39 as I like to have a >50% chance of winning all heroes.
Cheers!
A good player does not need to build a deck with hate for t3 heroes they'll bump into in qms. There's a reason why it's called tier 3. Their win condition is worse than your win condition, period. You don't need disruption for decks that don't need to be disrupted.
My point goes far beyond a mere percentage point. Your don't need hate for any deck with an inferior win condition to your own. The only time you need an answer to every other deck out there is when you're playing the weakest deck in the game, so if you're doing that I reccomend a change of hero, adding a few more cards won't help you much at that point.
not wrong,still tell that to a DC (T1 and good win percentage) who faces a Zhanna (T2 and less win percentage).This is just an example but it proves that sometimes situational cards may make the diference.I carry just 1-2 misplaced with my Boris even though i have 4smashing blows and that is mostly for a late game's full moon against DC or portal against mages or even some bazaars.Misplaced is definately not a necessary card in a warriors deck but i chose to run 3BS with my BFs in irder to be able to carry 44-45 cards which include the 3-4 situational cards (enrage is another one which is only against other warriors!)Quote:
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)
And this is something I disagree with totally. I don't just play SE for winning every time, I play to have a good challenge and fun. Sure, I won't torture myself with Serena, but I will like to use 2nd tier heroes to maximize their potential. 2 good example is sisyphos Banebow deck in v1.27 tourney. And the Gwen deck that got into the final of the pop-up tourney. There are runners-up, but in my mind, it more than proves themselves as good players.Quote:
Originally Posted by dndfreak
Really, if I just want to win and do nothing but win-and nothing but win, I won't have stuck to 40cards deck in QM since v1.25. If I just want to win, I will just use 30-card Majiya all the way from v1.26 onwards.
Of course, that probably means that you won't see me winning any tourney :p I just hope that I can help my fellow guild members to win the tourney :)
I look forward to seeing where each of you climbs to in the rankings and with what deck size.
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? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by dndfreak
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. :p
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.
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.
*ofcourse Enrage is for Eladwen!!Quote:
Originally Posted by dndfreak
i meant rampage!
Actually DNDFreak, I do understand the points.Quote:
Originally Posted by dndfreak
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 :)
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.
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
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...
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.
-Xepa: The fact is that if you're playing a card that draws you more cards, then you're not using those resources on playing the card you actually need. So say you REALLY need to play a tidal wave on t5 and have 40 cards already in the deck. You want to add draw to get that wave more often, yet can't decide what else you can afford to cut.
So But the problem is that these drawing cards aren't free cards. They take up your tempo and your resources. For example, say I add in a playset of Bad Santas, giving me 43 cards not counting my hero. Because of the fact that my deck now has these extra four cards, I'm less likely to both draw a tidal wave and be able to do the other things my deck is supposed to be doing.
This goes back to an article I did a while ago on The Plan, the ideal setup you want to shoot for in the first few turns. usually this involves dropping the necessary support items or other means of providing pressure over the course of the early to mid game. Say for this hypothetical priest stall deck, I really want to stick a t2 Puwen to provide an early distraction (or Retreat! to do pretty much the same thing), followed by a Curse on t3 to soak up even more damage and neutralize some threats completely (or Smite for removal), then a t4 either staff or Tainted Oracle to start getting cards back as I transition into the later turns. It's all well and good to have draw in your deck, don't get me wrong, but when you're trying to do a specific thing out of the gate there's no room to just add slots. Even if those cards do get you more cards, you spend the turn playing that BS and now you're behind completely in your gameplan, or even worse, you draw that BS on t5 instead of the wave. Sure, playing it might get you the card you're looking for, but you won't be able to play that card in the same turn.
Consistency isn't just about getting the card you want more often. You also have to get it (and play it) when you need it.
If your deck is better if you replace one of the cards in your Plan with more draw, forfeiting board position, then you need to cut the respective card in that slot. If you're working in room to play xx draw on t2 or 3 or whatever, then there's a card in your deck that you're no longer playing and it should be easy to figure out what goes.
For further reading, The Plan: http://www.shadowera.com/showthread....786#post129786
- Agree with DnDfreak about the Plan. It's a good read!
- As for the opinion about adding card draws to the deck minimum, I have a differing opinion from DnDfreak. If card draw is an issue, I would consider adding in 2 bad Santa (example need not be this card) to my deck. There had been games which the additional card draws helped bec the starting hand is poor and the additional card draw help me draw the and mitigate e poor starting hand. In a game with no mulligan, it's extremely important to be able to adapt to a poor hand. And having that additional flexibility helps.
- finally, Some of the good players responsed to GDC question about their best deck and the deck size. It ranges between 40 to 43. Rayzie (1 player which I respect a lot) says that he goes above the minimum bec he prefers the deck to be adaptable. And that is exactly my point for this article/thread.
There are ppl who never go beyond the card limit (like DnD and N3rd4Christ) and I respect their opinions. The thread tried to argue that in terms of absolute percentages, you dont suffer a big loss if you go beyond the minimum.
So whatever works for you :)
This conversation reminds me of a scene from Troy. Player A teaches player B how to build a deck, and that it should never go over 40 cards. Then, I'm a match, player A brings a 45 card deck. Player B questions this, player A replies 'when you're truly a master, you won't listen to my advice anymore.'
thanks for the replies =)
after reading all that, I can say I agree with Atomzed's point.
It all depends on the deck you're running and your playstyle (perfect answer to half the questions in this forum =p). It's true that for most cases a minimum size deck is better, but for some situations the adaptability can be more important
On my main account I play Lance, I always played 40 cards. Because of this thread I tryed to add draw without removing any card and it was a complete disaster... but that's because my deck needs to be fast and mantain board control [like Atomzed pointed for warriors].
In DnD's example, however, i think the extra BS could be worth it, because most priest decks work better on late game [as well as elementals], and you may not get your T5 Tidal Wave as often, but if you think about the 2nd or 3rd tidal wave on the game it's different, 'cause you may have resources enough to cast BS+TW+other card u got from BS or you can get a T7 tidal wave that without BS you would get only on T9.
What I can conclude from this is that when the game last long enough, what happened on the first few turns doesn't matter that much, if your deck hit this point in most games I think some extra cards can worth a small consistency loss.
excuse my english... hehehe
Consider that after you BS+TW+other card you got, your opponent gets first chance to cast Fattie + Other cards he/she got, or even fattie + fattieQuote:
Originally Posted by xepa
you are most likely going to end in the same position you just got out of.
Exactly. Remember that after the first few turns of the game, Bad Santa will end up giving your opponent one more card than yourself, which is even worse in a game that's going long. At seven resources and after you've already waved once, you'd typically want to go for a retreat plus a threat of your own (jasmine, EP, at 8 res Aeon or Ghostmaker). Giving your opponent three extra cards and then trading a tw one card for one bomb is absolutely horrible for you. Your opponent just plays a new threat out of their refilled hand and you're back to where you started, only with one less card compared to them and one less tidal wave in your deck.Quote:
Originally Posted by aardwar