Post by: Scaredgirl on April 23, 2010, 11:43:23 am
I have been thinking about this a long time now. I talk a bit about it in here (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,3329.msg32882#msg32882) but this is an important question so it really deserves its own thread.
The mistake many people make is that they take pillars depending on how many cards they have, when they should be asking: how much quanta is used?
There are roughly three different situations depending on how much quantum you produce.
1. You produce too much quanta. Your hand is usually small, and you keep drawing Pillars. "Damn, where is that Dragon?! I'm so unlucky!"
2. You produce too little quanta. You usually have a hand full of high cost cards but no quanta to pay for them. "Wtf, no Pillars?! I'm so unlucky!"
3. You produce optimal amount of quanta. Both your hand and you quanta reserves are empty but your table is full. You play cards as you draw them. "I'm pro".
This QI system tries to achieve situation #3 by adjusting the number of Pillars so that you don't overproduce or underproduce.
I decided to use simple math and the excellent thread Deckbuilding 101: From Noob to False God Slayer (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,1190.0.html) by jmizzle7. I too all 12 decks in that thread, counted quanta usage, and divided that by number of Pillars in that deck. I call it Quanta Index (QI).
QI Quanta Index | = | Total amount of quanta used to pay for cards + ability costs Number of pillars in the deck |
- if the ability happens automatically each turn (for example Devourer) it gets counted twice
- if the ability is non-situational as in player will play it if he has quanta (for example Chrysaora, Hourglass) it gets counted twice
- if the ability is situational (for example Maxwell's Demon) it gets counted once
PART 1 - QI for all 12 decks
Here are the results for all the 12 decks in that thread:
(http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/16/aetherfarmer.jpg) QI = 7.867 | (http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/9469/darknessgrinder.jpg) QI = 6.75 | (http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/8213/entropygrinder.jpg) QI = 6.5 |
(http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/6705/airgrinder.jpg) QI = 6.353 | (http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/108/gravitygrinder.jpg) QI = 5.875 | (http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/1884/timegrinder.jpg) QI = 5.5 |
(http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/4570/deathgrinder.jpg) QI = 5 | (http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/7883/earthgrinder.jpg) QI = 4.588 | (http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/2603/lifestarter.jpg) QI = 4.5 |
(http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/3259/lightgrinder.jpg) QI = 4.235 | (http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/3491/firegrinder.jpg) QI = 4* *I counted one Immolation giving +7 and other doing nothing | (http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/1050/watergrinder.png) QI = 2.727 |
If the QI is low that means there is too much quanta produced.
As you can see, the results are quite interesting.
You can instantly see that the Aether deck uses WAY too much quanta. I went to test this and QI is definitely right. When you play this deck, it's very likely that you are in a situation with bunch of high cost cards in your hand but no way of paying them.
The medium seems to be about 5. So we could say that for each 5 quantum you use, take one Pillar. This is of course just a rough estimate and guessing. Further study is required.
PART 2 - Improving the decks using QI
So I decided to take the decks with the highest and lowest QI and improve them using the formula. Decks are Aether and Water.
:water WATER
Water deck has a QI of 2.727 which is clearly too low. Some people might say that it needs those Pillars to be fast, but those people are wrong.
I played 10 matches with the original deck, and there was clear over production of quanta. after only a couple of turns I had 20+ Death quanta and kept on drawing Pillars.
Code: [Select]
4t3 52g 52g 52g 52g 52g 52g 52g 52g 52o 52o 52o 52o 52o 52o 52p 52p 52q 5i5 5i5 5i5 5i5 5i5 5i5 5i7 5i7 5i7 5i7 5i7 5i7QI = 5I the switched 2 Pillars to 2 Plague, and 1 Pillar to Arsenic, changing decks QI from 2.727 to 5 and the results were much better. I could instantly see how my quanta production was more balanced and my deck better.
:aether AETHER
Once again started with the original deck. I found it to be slow and sluggish. Annoying to play because I spent my time stalling and waiting for quanta.
Code: [Select]
61o 61o 61o 61o 61o 61o 61o 61o 61o 61o 61o 61o 61o 61o 61o 61o 61o 61o 61s 61s 61s 61s 61s 61s 61t 61t 61t 61v 61v 61vQI = 5.333After my changes, QI dropped to 5.333. I just took some cards by random because what the cards are makes no difference in this experiment, only card cost is relevant.
Just like with the Water deck, I could instantly see an improvement. The new Aether deck was much faster and more enjoyable to play. No more stalling and waiting, I could play something almost every turn and my hand had only 1-2 cards most of the times. I could probably drop QI below 5 and still have good results.
I'll post most findings later. Anyone who doubts the awesomeness of Quanta Index, try this little before-after experiment and see for yourself.
PART 3 - QI Report
What we need now is for someone to make a piece of code, that automatically counts QI.
It would look like Deck Image Creator (http://helltgivre.free.fr/elements/), only instead of an image, it would show the QI of your deck, and possibly even a small report where it would say something like this:
Quote
QI REPORTWho wants to waste his/her time in doing something like this? :)
Deck information:
Cards = 30
Total Cost of Cards = 72
Total Cost of abilities = 12
Number of Pillars = 11
QI
Your QI is 7.315 which is means you have too few pillars.
Fix:
Remove 2 copies of Golden Dragon.
Take 2 copies of Light Pillar.
This will change your QI to 5.152.
Ok, I need to take a break. I'll write some more stuff later.
I've never studied math in a University level and I would really like to hear some input from all you math nerds out there :) I'm sure there are many variables that I haven't taken into consideration.
We could potentially design a mathematical formula that tells you the optimal quanta usage without ever even testing the deck (I already did that with the Aether deck). That would be pretty cool. :)
Discuss.
Post by: Glitch on April 23, 2010, 12:16:50 pm
Seems good. I'm confused how lucifrase and quantum pillars would work, and I'm not sure how upgraded pillars get counted, but I definitely see how this could help newbies.
Post by: Scaredgirl on April 23, 2010, 12:29:26 pm
=oQuantum Pillars and all Towers would have their own formula. This one works only with regular Pillars.
Seems good. I'm confused how lucifrase and quantum pillars would work, and I'm not sure how upgraded pillars get counted, but I definitely see how this could help newbies.
And this isn't just for newbies. 99.99% of players don't calculate these things in their head, they just take some amount of Pillars and test it. For example I've built 100+ decks and I've always tested what the optimal number of Pillars is. Had there been this kind of formula (proven to work) it would have saved a lot of my time.
Post by: Astaroth on April 23, 2010, 01:25:06 pm
Post by: Kael Hate on April 23, 2010, 01:35:47 pm
Evaluating decks via Cost is good for a basic check, but there are variances that you need to look at when heading to refine. An Example is the Life deck. after you have 5 life pillars on the table there is no more need as you can only play 1 card per turn and no further need to stcokpile. The decks with big Dragons like the entropy deck need more to get to the critical 1 card drop. The Darkness deck is an exception because it generates quanta from devourers. The Aether deck can run a little short because you get a 3 turn stall off of each shield.
Post by: Kamietsu on April 23, 2010, 01:54:14 pm
What? How does that even work? Only one ability in all of Elements happens each turn and costs quanta (Inundation). Devourer doesn't have an ability that costs quanta that happens automatically each turn.
- if the ability happens automatically each turn (for example Devourer) it gets counted twice
Post by: Cynxos on April 23, 2010, 02:05:33 pm
This is... Pretty usefull.
But I'm not sure regarding the entire "fore each 5 quantum take 1 pillar" thing.
In a way it seems like it wouldn't be efficient enough. And as for the stats regarding the Poison deck, I KNEW IT!
Post by: Scaredgirl on April 23, 2010, 02:44:17 pm
Yeah, this is definitely a nice look into how many pillars are needed in a deck. I have a question though. Wouldn't decks with quanta-producing creatures show a much higher index than what it really is? For example, that Dark deck has 6 quanta-producing Devourers. Wouldn't its QI be a bit lower?Yes, you are right. Quanta-producing creatures have to be taken into consideration. They are that "ability happens automatically each turn" I talk about in the original post.
In case of Devourers, I counted them so that each Devourer uses his quantum drain ability twice, lowering the "total amount of quanta used to pay for cards". So if you have
My reasoning behind this is that some Devourers in your deck probably use the ability 4+ times (Devourers in your opening hand) while others don't use it at all (Devourers at the bottom of your deck). This gives us a highly theoretical average of 2 per Devourer.
Evaluating decks via Cost is good for a basic check, but there are variances that you need to look at when heading to refine. An Example is the Life deck. after you have 5 life pillars on the table there is no more need as you can only play 1 card per turn and no further need to stcokpile. The decks with big Dragons like the entropy deck need more to get to the critical 1 card drop. The Darkness deck is an exception because it generates quanta from devourers. The Aether deck can run a little short because you get a 3 turn stall off of each shield.Yep, this is just the basic framework. It of course needs some fine tuning based on what the actual cards are.
See part 1 in this post.What? How does that even work? Only one ability in all of Elements happens each turn and costs quanta (Inundation). Devourer doesn't have an ability that costs quanta that happens automatically each turn.
- if the ability happens automatically each turn (for example Devourer) it gets counted twice
Wow...I listed proven deck that have a QI of 5 or even less. It's enough.
This is... Pretty usefull.
But I'm not sure regarding the entire "fore each 5 quantum take 1 pillar" thing.
In a way it seems like it wouldn't be efficient enough. And as for the stats regarding the Poison deck, I KNEW IT!
What the optimal QI is, I have no idea. That 5 was just guess, and it sounds better than 4 or 6.
Post by: Boingo on April 23, 2010, 03:29:20 pm
1. Some of this will depend on how many "dead" cards you have where the card will not get played as it won't have an major effect on the outcome of the game, as with plague against an :aether deck or a given shield against a deck with momentum.
2. Can you treat rainbow decks in the same way as mono decks?
3. Other important variables may include cards like fractal--for example, how will fractal alter the number of :darkness pillars you need in a pest/fractal deck? Does it depend on the number of fractal cards in the deck? What about pharoah or FFQ?
Finally, the number you calculate gives you an idea of how much you'd need to play every card in the deck and not how well the deck will do in a given match where rarely are all the cards played. I fear the optimal number of pillars may only be determined for a given opposing deck. As such, there may be an optimal number for performance for each of the decks you've listed against a standard shrieker deck, but there's no telling if these numbers would be different for the same decks when facing flying titan deck or a water poison deck.
This is not proof one way or the other, I just raise some speculation on the premise of the exercise.
Post by: Thalas on April 23, 2010, 03:47:00 pm
I think best is try number of pillars in game and you don't have to calculate it.
There are some factors that are unpredictable like opponent's deck, randomness and many other things.
Post by: Scaredgirl on April 23, 2010, 04:35:44 pm
While I applaud the effort to objectively justify the number of pillars/towers in a deck, I think the answer will depend to a great extent on what type deck (and/or player) you are facing. In other words, the optimal number of pillars may shift dramatically when playing a T50 PvE as opposed to playing the actual T50 player PvP.1. What your opponent has of course affects what your optimal number of Pillars is. Unfortunately you can never know what your opponent is going to play so you cannot really prepare for that. All you can do is try to find the optimal number in most cases.
1. Some of this will depend on how many "dead" cards you have where the card will not get played as it won't have an major effect on the outcome of the game, as with plague against an :aether deck or a given shield against a deck with momentum.
2. Can you treat rainbow decks in the same way as mono decks?
3. Other important variables may include cards like fractal--for example, how will fractal alter the number of :darkness pillars you need in a pest/fractal deck? Does it depend on the number of fractal cards in the deck? What about pharoah or FFQ?
Finally, the number you calculate gives you an idea of how much you'd need to play every card in the deck and not how well the deck will do in a given match where rarely are all the cards played. I fear the optimal number of pillars may only be determined for a given opposing deck. As such, there may be an optimal number for performance for each of the decks you've listed against a standard shrieker deck, but there's no telling if these numbers would be different for the same decks when facing flying titan deck or a water poison deck.
This is not proof one way or the other, I just raise some speculation on the premise of the exercise.
2. Probably not. Rainbow decks seem to require less Pillars than mono-decks.
3. That's where advanced math comes into play. I'm sure there is some complicated formula that would do this but we don't know what it is. This is just the beginning. The formula needs special rules for each special card.
Nice Scared Girl.Like I said there earlier, you cannot prepare for everything so why should you even try? There is no perfect amount of Pillars but there is a number that gives you the best results on average. And using math to determine that number is what we are trying to do here.
I think best is try number of pillars in game and you don't have to calculate it.
There are some factors that are unpredictable like opponent's deck, randomness and many other things.
Post by: kintar on April 23, 2010, 09:55:03 pm
Post by: Scaredgirl on April 23, 2010, 11:24:37 pm
An important factor IMO that is not taken into account is the speed of the deck. Faster decks have less time to produce quanta, so they need more pillars. I've farmed AI5 with mono-aether before, and it generally doesn't run into quanta issues even though it supposedly uses way too much quanta, because it's a slow deck so it has more time to produce quanta.The most popular speed deck in the history of Elements is that Earth Shrieker rush over there. It has 17 Pillars which sounds a lot at first, but it also uses 72 quanta, giving it a QI of 4,588 which is pretty average. So even though it looks to be producing extra quanta to make it fast, it's really not, it just has high cost cards.
If you used that particular mono-Aether for grinding, I can guarantee that you had quanta issues. Otherwise you are the luckiest player in Elements. I tested it myself today multiple times and and I had TONS of quanta issues. Trade 2-3 Shields for Pillars and you will see a huge difference in both speed and performance.
Sure you could play it with 10 Pillars and stall hiding behind Dimensional Shields, but why would you? The fact that you can stall doesn't mean you should do it. Why not take more Pillars and give your deck speed? You never know if your opponent has permanent destruction or if he uses Fire Bolts. In both of those cases your stalling strategy will kill you.
Here's a challenge for you: Use this formula and build a deck that has a QI of 7+. I can guarantee that I can tweak it so that it will perform better.
Post by: Scaredgirl on April 23, 2010, 11:45:29 pm
Post by: Bloodshadow on April 24, 2010, 12:25:34 am
As for Towers, Immolation and such... I think they should be counted as negative cost. They don't produce quanta indefinitely, but they do generate quanta in single bursts so they can surely lower the QI.
For Miracle and Fractal, I have absolutely no idea what the heck can we do. I'm a math nerd, but this area of math is not exactly my favorite.
Post by: PuppyChow on April 24, 2010, 12:57:42 am
-for 2 cost abilities, it costs 8 quanta.
-for 1 cost abilities, it costs 4 quanta.
-one time abilities cost just what they say.
-differentiate between elements (ideal pillars of each. I have an idea as to how to factor the mark in to this).
My reasoning is that though some abilities are situational, you always want to have the quanta to use them anyway for those times you DO need them. Plus it's so much easier to code; I don't want to have to go give each ability an attribute of how situational it is.
As to mono aether, normal mono aether is funny because the whole IDEA of it is to NOT play every card at one time. Your goal with it isn't to be able to play every card. Your goal is to keep from taking damage with 6x dim shields; in your alteration, taking them out isn't a good idea unless you were just going for AI3. And if you were, then there are better options besides mono aether :). Mono aether is weird because you don't have to play your cards at a fast rate; just at a rate to get 100 damage done before you deck out.
So: 15x aether pillar, 6x immortal, 5x dim shield, 4x phase dragon > 18x aether pillar, 6x immortal, 3x dim shield, 3x phase dragon. Even though you won't be able to play cards at the same rate with the former.
With my project, I plan on reflecting this by making mono aether decks a special case where it will run a different algorithm.
Post by: Scaredgirl on April 24, 2010, 12:58:57 am
For quanta-producing creatures, I think they should be counted as pillars. Or, more precisely, the QI of a deck should be the total quanta cost divided by the number of quanta-producing cards (pillars + creatures).Yes, but compared to Pillars, creatures are much more likely to be destroyed. I'm not sure if you can simply count them as Pillars. It's a good idea though, and something I hadn't thought about.
Not sure what you mean by "negative cost".
As to mono aether, normal mono aether is funny because the whole IDEA of it is to NOT play every card at one time. Your goal with it isn't to be able to play every card. Your goal is to keep from taking damage with 6x dim shields; in your alteration, taking them out isn't a good idea unless you were just going for AI3. And if you were, then there are better options besides mono aether :). Mono aether is weird because you don't have to play your cards at a fast rate; just at a rate to get 100 damage done before you deck out.Yes, but you are assuming that the opponent does not have permanent removal, momentum, etc. and just lets you stall in peace. That's not always the case. If your opponent can deal with the dim shields, your sluggish deck is done.
So: 15x aether pillar, 6x immortal, 5x dim shield, 4x phase dragon > 18x aether pillar, 6x immortal, 3x dim shield, 3x phase dragon. Even though you won't be able to play cards at the same rate with the former.
Post by: PuppyChow on April 24, 2010, 01:28:25 am
Quote
Yes, but you are assuming that the opponent does not have permanent removal, momentum, etc. and just lets you stall in peace. That's not always the case. If your opponent can deal with the dim shields, your sluggish deck is done.I'm not sure what the etc. is there for :). Pests, perm removal, and momentum are pretty much it.
But ya, that's mono aether's crutch. You lose to a few things, like every deck. But mono aether is still a unique case, since its goal is too stall until you win not win asap. With the deck you altered it to you completely changed the goal of the deck. While it may perform better on your QI scale, it most definitely is not a better deck.
Post by: Scaredgirl on April 24, 2010, 01:43:37 am
Well I didn't say "Pests" so that could be the "etc". Or maybe Fire Bolts, etc. There are many ways to counter Dim Shields.QuoteYes, but you are assuming that the opponent does not have permanent removal, momentum, etc. and just lets you stall in peace. That's not always the case. If your opponent can deal with the dim shields, your sluggish deck is done.I'm not sure what the etc. is there for :). Pests, perm removal, and momentum are pretty much it.
But ya, that's mono aether's crutch. You lose to a few things, like every deck. But mono aether is still a unique case, since its goal is too stall until you win not win asap. With the deck you altered it to you completely changed the goal of the deck. While it may perform better on your QI scale, it most definitely is not a better deck.Where does it say that the only "good" aether strategy is slow stalling decks with 6 x Dim Shields? That's an old fashioned deck used by dinosaurs who keep on doing the same thing over and over again because it was the best strategy to beat FG's back in the day.
I've personally tested both of those decks today, and I found the one I made to be much better. It's much faster and more fun to play. You can be stubborn and say "definitely is not a better deck" all you want, OR you can actually go and test it out. Results might surprise you.
While your at it, test the Water deck too. QI, even this first rought version of it, works very well.
Post by: PuppyChow on April 24, 2010, 01:56:08 am
And I said that yours ISN'T a better deck, not that the "old fashioned" one is.
Yours is faster, but loses to most other speed decks (especially those with perm control) since aether creatures cost so much. They have different strengths and different weaknesses. The fact is, if you want to change the deck in that way, you're changing the whole point of it.
It would be like saying change from a FG Rainbow to a Shrieker Spam because it has a better QI. Both are great decks, but they're good for different things.
Post by: Bloodshadow on April 24, 2010, 02:31:15 am
Quote
Yes, but compared to Pillars, creatures are much more likely to be destroyed. I'm not sure if you can simply count them as Pillars. It's a good idea though, and something I hadn't thought about.1: Really? Pillars are very easily destroyed, too. There are permanent destruction cards, and Earthquake. To me, the chance of a creature getting destroyed is only slightly more than a permanent.
Not sure what you mean by "negative cost".
2: Negative cost means what it says; it reduces your total cost. For example, if your deck uses 50 :fire, and you add a Burning Tower, the cost is reduced to 49. But for Immolation/Cremation it would probably only count as half (Immolation count as -4 while Cremation -5), because unlike Towers and Nova, it requires a creature to cast.
What to do about Quantum Pillars? Maybe you can try to do one normally, with each pillar counting as three pillars?
EDIT: Just had a thought. Maybe some of the costs in the numerator don't have to be constant? Say, the cost of Miracle depends on how many pillars you have in the denominator. I was thinking about Calculus, and how the slope of y=x2 was always 2x instead of a constant...
Post by: PhantomFox on April 24, 2010, 02:46:38 am
Code: [Select]
55n 55n 55n 55o 55p 55p 55s 55t 55t 55t 55v 55v 55v 6rn 744 744 744 744 744 744 744 744 744 744 744 744 745 745 745 745 745 748 74a 74a 74b 74b 74bIt seems like deck size affects the calculation as well. This uses 114 quanta, and so to reach a goal of 5, I would need 22 pillars? Something seems off.
Post by: Scaredgirl on April 24, 2010, 10:35:37 am
Yours is faster, but loses to most other speed decks (especially those with perm control) since aether creatures cost so much. They have different strengths and different weaknesses. The fact is, if you want to change the deck in that way, you're changing the whole point of it.Speed decks with permanent control, huh? You don't see enough of those nowadays. Most people want speed decks to be FAST so they don't take cards like that. :)
It would be like saying change from a FG Rainbow to a Shrieker Spam because it has a better QI. Both are great decks, but they're good for different things.
Have you actually read that post by jmizzle7? Do you know what decks and what purpose we are talking about here? We are not building False Gods decks here. This is only about quanta usage, and the decks in question are starter decks.
What I did was I improved two "newbie starter decks" by making their quanta usage more efficient only using QI, My quick test confirmed it to be a success.
Like I said in my previous post, you should go test both decks out. Fight 10 times against AI3 with both decks and you'll see what I mean. Repeating "that deck is not good.. that deck is not good.." over and over again won't change the facts no matter how much you want the deck to suck. :)
1. There are way more cards and abilities that destroy/lobotomize creatures than there are cards that destroy Pillars. Earthquake is the only real threat, other permanent removals are generally saved for non-Pillar permanents.QuoteYes, but compared to Pillars, creatures are much more likely to be destroyed. I'm not sure if you can simply count them as Pillars. It's a good idea though, and something I hadn't thought about.1: Really? Pillars are very easily destroyed, too. There are permanent destruction cards, and Earthquake. To me, the chance of a creature getting destroyed is only slightly more than a permanent.
Not sure what you mean by "negative cost".
2: Negative cost means what it says; it reduces your total cost. For example, if your deck uses 50 :fire, and you add a Burning Tower, the cost is reduced to 49. But for Immolation/Cremation it would probably only count as half (Immolation count as -4 while Cremation -5), because unlike Towers and Nova, it requires a creature to cast.
Cards that do creature control in some shape or form, there are probably close to 20 of those, and low HP quanta generating creatures are an easy target.
I'm not saying my system is perfect. It could be that counting the ability only twice is not enough. Maybe three times would be better? Or maybe there's some other yet to be discovered way of doing it?
Whatever the best way is, I doubt it's simply looking at them as Pillars.
2. That's exactly what I did with that fire deck. 2 Immolation would give +14, but I gave only +7 (50%) because of the same thing you said - it requires a creature.
Quote
Maybe you can try to do one normally, with each pillar counting as three pillars?I don't know what that means. If you simply mean that 1 Quantum Pillar = 3 Pillars, that would most definitely break the formula.
Quote
EDIT: Just had a thought. Maybe some of the costs in the numerator don't have to be constant? Say, the cost of Miracle depends on how many pillars you have in the denominator. I was thinking about Calculus, and how the slope of y=x2 was always 2x instead of a constant...Yep, I was thinking about a similar thing yesterday. Like the effectiveness of Immolation relies on the fact that how many small critters (for example Ash Eaters) you have. The more you have them, the more likely it is that you can use Immolation and get that extra quanta.
It's interesting stuff.
Here's the deck without towers:Code: [Select]55n 55n 55n 55o 55p 55p 55s 55t 55t 55t 55v 55v 55v 6rn 744 744 744 744 744 744 744 744 744 744 744 744 745 745 745 745 745 748 74a 74a 74b 74b 74b
It seems like deck size affects the calculation as well. This uses 114 quanta, and so to reach a goal of 5, I would need 22 pillars? Something seems off.
Code: [Select]
55n 55n 55n 55o 55p 55p 55s 55t 55t 55t 55v 55v 55v 6rn 745 745 745 745 745 748 74a 74a 74b 74b 74bThere are 25 cards, most of them relatively high cost. I don't necessarily see how 22 Pillars would be way too much, unless you specifically want a bigger deck that is a slow starter. Keep in mind that we are indeed talking about Pillars here, not Towers.That 5 is just a number I guessed would be close to optimal. The real optimum number is probably something else.
But I do agree that the QI system changes when a deck becomes bigger. This is because of Mulligan and other things.
Post by: PuppyChow on April 24, 2010, 09:55:15 pm
Quote
Speed decks with permanent control, huh? You don't see enough of those nowadays. Most people want speed decks to be FAST so they don't take cards like that. :)Speed decks with Perm Control? Mono fire, mono dark... :).
Have you actually read that post by jmizzle7? Do you know what decks and what purpose we are talking about here? We are not building False Gods decks here. This is only about quanta usage, and the decks in question are starter decks.
What I did was I improved two "newbie starter decks" by making their quanta usage more efficient only using QI, My quick test confirmed it to be a success.
Like I said in my previous post, you should go test both decks out. Fight 10 times against AI3 with both decks and you'll see what I mean. Repeating "that deck is not good.. that deck is not good.." over and over again won't change the facts no matter how much you want the deck to suck. :)
And I thought we were talking about decks in general, not just starter decks. Mono aether using dim shields is built for pvp and AI5, not AI3 which is what most newbie decks are for.
I repeat, I never said that the new deck wasn't good. Just that it was good for different things. If you tried to take on AI5 with it, you would lose every game unless you got lucky. For some stats, I just played 5 games vs AI5. Won 1, Lost 4. (Oh and 3 of those I had over 50 aether at the end. I'm not sure a QI of 5 is about right).
Traditional mono aether is better at other types, but yes, your revised deck is better for AI3.
In effect, my problem with how you changed the traditional mono aether is this:
You changed the focus of it. You made it a completely new deck. If you had simply made it 6x dim shield, 6x phase dragon, 18 pillar (19 with mark), the QI is 6.33 (6 with mark). Not too bad of a QI, and you don't drastically change the focus of the deck.
Again, what you did with the deck was the equivalent of changing a deck from a FG Farmer to a Shrieker Spam because it has a better QI. You shouldn't do that, since they are BOTH good decks.
Post by: Scaredgirl on April 24, 2010, 11:46:34 pm
Speed decks with Perm Control? Mono fire, mono dark... :).Well, then the problem is that we define "speed deck" a bit differently. None of the speeds decks I use have any defensive cards or permanent removal because those make the deck slower. Shrieker rush is a good example of how I see speed decks, only damage and Pillars.
This concept of QI needs a lot of work. I'll try to devote some time on it next week.
Post by: PuppyChow on April 25, 2010, 12:04:06 am
For me, a speed deck is a deck that wins relatively fast. In pvp and T50, speed decks that have no control at all usually lose. Add in some explosions and steals and take out some of the damage, and your win % in T50/PvP will go up (not in AI3). And the deck is still rather fast (think cremations with some explosions).Speed decks with Perm Control? Mono fire, mono dark... :).Well, then the problem is that we define "speed deck" a bit differently. None of the speeds decks I use have any defensive cards or permanent removal because those make the deck slower. Shrieker rush is a good example of how I see speed decks, only damage and Pillars.
This concept of QI needs a lot of work. I'll try to devote some time on it next week.
And I consider a graboid rush using quicksands a speed deck too, albeit a control focused speed deck.
Post by: Bloodshadow on April 25, 2010, 12:19:22 am
For Immolation/Cremation, I think each should count as half of what it generates; however, the amount of immolatable creatures must be greater than the amount of Immolation cards you have (if you have 6 Immolations but only 5 Photons, one Immolation is a dead card). It could depend on the number of those small creatures, and it could also depend on the COST of those creatures (free VS not free), or if they generate quanta or not (Photon VS Ray of Light), or even what element of quanta they generate (Ray of Light VS Brimstone Eater)...
But as for Miracle and Fractal, I think it should simply depend on the number of pillars you have. With more pillars, it gets easier to gather that 10 or so quanta; but after you use the spell, more quanta are wasted if you have more pillars. Maybe we need to do some sort of limit thing, like the limit of card effectiveness as the number of pillars approach infinity (or 60)...
We need more math nerds on this thread. :P
Post by: Xinef on April 25, 2010, 12:57:35 am
For example take a pillarless golem rush, we expect to win in about 5-6 turns, so an estimate of 2.5 uses of growth per golem played is a good estimate.
On the other hand take an FFQ deck with bonds and/or shields so that we can stall a bit, so let's assume 10 turns is the average. We can expect to use queens ability ~5 times on average (probably less, but still it's a closer approximation than 2 or 3).
I think a simple formula of
expected_number_of_turns / 2
would be a good approximation for abilities with a cost that you usually use each turn.
As for immolation the fact you have to sacrifice a creature should not affect it's cost in formula, because the creatures already affect the formula with their cost, and if it's a free creature like photon it costs you only a card, not quanta, so I don't see how would that affect quantum balance of the deck.
I think novas and immolations could be calculated as negative cost with a formula like
novas: -1*number of elements used by the deck
supernovas: -2*number of elements used by the deck
similar for immolations/cremations but with an additional -7/-9
As for quantum pillars/towers I guess the best solution for now would be to simply find the best QI for rainbow decks, which will probably be a different number than for mono/duo but still it will be useful to balance quantum usage in rainbows until a more complex formula is found.
Post by: Ashebrethafe on April 25, 2010, 02:10:07 am
- The number of :water pillars in my deck is 1/5 of the number of :water quanta in the costs of my non-pillar cards and their abilities, rounded up. (Likewise for each other element, but only :water quanta are in my current deck's card costs.) I haven't been counting any abilities twice, though.
- Quantum pillars count as 1/4 of a pillar of each element -- so if I have mono-element pillars of four or more elements, I run one less pillar of each element and four more quantum pillars. So far this has only happened with :water ( :death for chrysaora, :aether for mind flayer, :air for toadfish).
- I don't include any pillars to support cards that cost random quanta -- but I usually run only one. Right now it's a sword.
Post by: Optimalist on April 25, 2010, 03:31:47 am
Um... can we also think of what to do with Novas and Supernovas?
Post by: xKelevra on April 25, 2010, 05:10:44 am
Post by: omgarm on April 25, 2010, 01:44:27 pm
Post by: Scaredgirl on April 25, 2010, 06:32:06 pm
I dunno, maybe a quanta-generating creature count as half a pillar, or more if it has more HP? Devourer/Pest is probably slightly different, because it can only generate :darkness if your opponent's quanta is greater than zero.I like the idea of quanta-generating creature counting as half a pillar. Yeah, a great idea. Taking HP or other things into consideration might make it a bit too complex though. But the half a pillar thing has to be definitely tested.
You could even make quanta generating creatures "75% Pillars" (make them 0,75). We can use any number we want really.
For Immolation/Cremation, I think each should count as half of what it generates; however, the amount of immolatable creatures must be greater than the amount of Immolation cards you have (if you have 6 Immolations but only 5 Photons, one Immolation is a dead card). It could depend on the number of those small creatures, and it could also depend on the COST of those creatures (free VS not free), or if they generate quanta or not (Photon VS Ray of Light), or even what element of quanta they generate (Ray of Light VS Brimstone Eater)...The problem is of course: what are "immolatable creatures"? What is the cost or HP when a "immolatable creatures" becomes a regular creature? :)
But yeah.. the number of creatures have to be taken into consideration somehow.
But as for Miracle and Fractal, I think it should simply depend on the number of pillars you have. With more pillars, it gets easier to gather that 10 or so quanta; but after you use the spell, more quanta are wasted if you have more pillars. Maybe we need to do some sort of limit thing, like the limit of card effectiveness as the number of pillars approach infinity (or 60)...Maybe I'm looking this the wrong way but I don't really see how Miracle would need any special rules. As for Fractal.. I have no idea what to do with that.
We need more math nerds on this thread. :PYep. Where are they? This is supposed to be the freaking internet!
I think we should add the expected number of turns to the formula.That's an interesting point. I have to think about it.
For example take a pillarless golem rush, we expect to win in about 5-6 turns, so an estimate of 2.5 uses of growth per golem played is a good estimate.
On the other hand take an FFQ deck with bonds and/or shields so that we can stall a bit, so let's assume 10 turns is the average. We can expect to use queens ability ~5 times on average (probably less, but still it's a closer approximation than 2 or 3).
I think a simple formula of
expected_number_of_turns / 2
would be a good approximation for abilities with a cost that you usually use each turn.
As for immolation the fact you have to sacrifice a creature should not affect it's cost in formula, because the creatures already affect the formula with their cost, and if it's a free creature like photon it costs you only a card, not quanta, so I don't see how would that affect quantum balance of the deck.Yes, but the number of creatures is significant because the more creatures you have, the more likely you get to play those Immolations. No creatures, no quanta.
I think novas and immolations could be calculated as negative cost with a formula likeI have drank way too much coffee to even begin to understand that. I'll try again tomorrow.
novas: -1*number of elements used by the deck
supernovas: -2*number of elements used by the deck
similar for immolations/cremations but with an additional -7/-9
As for quantum pillars/towers I guess the best solution for now would be to simply find the best QI for rainbow decks, which will probably be a different number than for mono/duo but still it will be useful to balance quantum usage in rainbows until a more complex formula is found.Yep, this what I'm thinking too. Not only could you find the optimal QI for different decks, but you could also find the optimal QI depending on the opponent (lower against AI3, higher against FG's).
I didn't see this thread until today, but I've already been doing something similar with the decks I've been using -- keeping the QI near 5, and usually below (since most of the starter decks seem to have QIs between 4 and 5). To be exact:I think counting abilities twice is closer to true usage, although I'm just guessing.
- The number of :water pillars in my deck is 1/5 of the number of :water quanta in the costs of my non-pillar cards and their abilities, rounded up. (Likewise for each other element, but only :water quanta are in my current deck's card costs.) I haven't been counting any abilities twice, though.
- Quantum pillars count as 1/4 of a pillar of each element -- so if I have mono-element pillars of four or more elements, I run one less pillar of each element and four more quantum pillars. So far this has only happened with :water ( :death for chrysaora, :aether for mind flayer, :air for toadfish).
- I don't include any pillars to support cards that cost random quanta -- but I usually run only one. Right now it's a sword.
Quantifying Quanta. Interesting!Xinef already suggested something but I've drank too much coffee to understand it.
Um... can we also think of what to do with Novas and Supernovas?
I take it that this doesn't take fractal into account?At the moment, no.
This is very good for an objective look on decks. As Puppy pointed out the purpose of a deck can ask for a different QI, so claiming that a QI of 5 is optimal only goes for most speed decks I believe. Perhaps stall decks are better off suited with a QI of 7? Would SG's unupped rainbow give a QI of 7, assuming you count Quantum Pillars as 1/4 of each element. It would be a decent check.I think I talked about this earlier. And like I said, that 5 was only a guess. And Yes, Quantum Pillars have a different optimal QI.
Post by: ftbhrygvn on April 25, 2010, 06:38:07 pm
I was using something similar. But I found some problem in this kind of system.
I was using an FFQ deck with 10 Wind Pillar and 6 FFQs (QI = 3.6) and I got underqunta at first. But after 10 or so rounds, I have just enough and way too much towards the end game.
I think the optimal QI should depend on how fast you want your deck to be. I used my FFQ to slowly spam the field. I fill my field in 20 rounds most of the time, when I get >60 damage a round.
For the QI report part, the sample should say not enough pillars instead if too much. My plan for my next project was some info checker for decks and cards. Maybe I can add QI to the list of info. But I will prepare for my exams after the card gen is finished and I can only work on this after my IGCSE. And that's late June. If someone else (esp .Planplan) want to do it, I have no objection (and seems that I don't have the right to).
Post by: jmizzle7 on April 25, 2010, 07:20:30 pm
I'm a math nerd, but I'm a math nerd with zero time right now. Finals + two jobs = busy jmizzle. :PWe need more math nerds on this thread. :PYep. Where are they? This is supposed to be the freaking internet!
Post by: Xinef on April 25, 2010, 07:53:02 pm
Right now I think my idea has to be changed a little so don't waste your time trying to understand it, I'm working on something better... but I'll try to be clearer next time ;)I think novas and immolations could be calculated as negative cost with a formula likeI have drank way too much coffee to even begin to understand that. I'll try again tomorrow.
novas: -1*number of elements used by the deck
supernovas: -2*number of elements used by the deck
similar for immolations/cremations but with an additional -7/-9
Post by: omgarm on April 25, 2010, 07:58:27 pm
I know, but I mean you should take some basic decks that rely on stalling their way to victory. Perhaps the Aether deck did run on optimal QI because it's made to stall. If other stalling decks also run at roughly 7 then that problem is solved.This is very good for an objective look on decks. As Puppy pointed out the purpose of a deck can ask for a different QI, so claiming that a QI of 5 is optimal only goes for most speed decks I believe. Perhaps stall decks are better off suited with a QI of 7? Would SG's unupped rainbow give a QI of 7, assuming you count Quantum Pillars as 1/4 of each element. It would be a decent check.I think I talked about this earlier. And like I said, that 5 was only a guess. And Yes, Quantum Pillars have a different optimal QI.
Post by: Bloodshadow on April 26, 2010, 12:53:04 am
Miracle doesn't need special treatment? All right.
Fractal... Hmm, maybe it counts as 9 :aether plus 6x the to-be-copied creature? Generally you want to use Fractal when you have an empty hand, but that is not always the case; sometimes I'm forced to use Fractal on a Devourer when I have up to three other cards in my hand. I think 6x is a good average; ideally I can create 8x copies of the creature, but my minimally accepted value is 4x to count the Fractal as not wasted.
I don't know... The above might sound confusing, so don't stay up and drink coffee while reading it :P
Post by: Scaredgirl on April 26, 2010, 01:19:57 pm
Well, the optimal QI changes depending of what kind of deck you are building. FG rainbow decks are a perfect example of this because they produce a relatively small amount of quanta.I know, but I mean you should take some basic decks that rely on stalling their way to victory. Perhaps the Aether deck did run on optimal QI because it's made to stall. If other stalling decks also run at roughly 7 then that problem is solved.This is very good for an objective look on decks. As Puppy pointed out the purpose of a deck can ask for a different QI, so claiming that a QI of 5 is optimal only goes for most speed decks I believe. Perhaps stall decks are better off suited with a QI of 7? Would SG's unupped rainbow give a QI of 7, assuming you count Quantum Pillars as 1/4 of each element. It would be a decent check.I think I talked about this earlier. And like I said, that 5 was only a guess. And Yes, Quantum Pillars have a different optimal QI.
It could be something like this:
QI 4 = speed deck
QI 5 = balanced deck
QI 6 = defensive deck
Then you could simply tweak the QI based on what kind of deck you are building, or where you are going to use it.
@SG: Xinef's method on Nova and Supernova makes perfect sense to me. For example, if you have an upped FFQ deck that uses :air :life :fire, then when you cast Nova, it counts as -3 because your deck uses three elements out of all the elements Nova generate. If your deck is only composed of :aether, then it only counts as -1. If your deck is a rainbow that uses 11 out of 12 elements, it counts as -11. Etc, etc. Quite a nice method actually.It can't be that simple.
If I have a rainbow deck that uses all 12 elements, and I had 6 Novas, that would mean -72? And with Supernovas, -144? Can't be.
But one thing is clear: with Novas and Quantum Towers, how much you use different elements has to be a factor.
Miracle doesn't need special treatment? All right.I don't know if it does but for me it sounds like it doesn't.
Post by: TheMonolith on April 26, 2010, 04:11:27 pm
Yes, the MASQUE thing is cheesy.
Post by: Xinef on April 26, 2010, 05:06:54 pm
Yes, that's why I don't think my first idea can be used as is, but has to be changed to take use of particular elements into account.@SG: Xinef's method on Nova and Supernova makes perfect sense to me. For example, if you have an upped FFQ deck that uses :air :life :fire, then when you cast Nova, it counts as -3 because your deck uses three elements out of all the elements Nova generate. If your deck is only composed of :aether, then it only counts as -1. If your deck is a rainbow that uses 11 out of 12 elements, it counts as -11. Etc, etc. Quite a nice method actually.It can't be that simple.
If I have a rainbow deck that uses all 12 elements, and I had 6 Novas, that would mean -72? And with Supernovas, -144? Can't be.
But one thing is clear: with Novas and Quantum Towers, how much you use different elements has to be a factor.
Right now I think that you have to calculate QI separately for each element, for example if you run 6 Quantum Towers and 6 Supernovas in a 30 card deck, you expect to win in 7 turns, and the only card using :death in your deck is an arsenic:
- 7 turns => 15 cards
- this means that on average you will draw 15/30 * 6 = 3 supernovas during a typical game, that adds up to 6 :death quanta
- this means your arsenic can be considered a free card (:death has a QI of 0 ) and you do not need any towers to play it.
On the other hand let's assume you include 2 lava destroyers in that deck
- supernovas give you 6 :fire on average, so you still need to pay 4 :fire with your towers (in case you draw both destroyers)
- Quantum Towers count as 1/4 of a Burning Pillar, so Quantum Index of :fire in this deck is 4/(1/4 * 6) ~= 2,7
this leads to conclusion, that either QI of 2,7 is too much for speed rainbows, or we have to design an even better formula, because 10 :fire is a bit too much for a speed rainbow.
Hmm... my final conclusion is that calculating QI as a ratio (total cost / total towers) might not be the best idea when we take novas/immolations/quantum pillars into account. It might work for mono decks, but for duo/trio/rainbow I guess a more complex formula has to be found, something like (total cost of cards played during a typical match / total quantum produced during a typical match). Both can be estimated if we know the size of the deck and how long a typical game lasts.
By the way, I could try to write a Java Applet to calculate QI (could be yours formula to calculate it, or mine, or even both), but if you prefer some other technology then someone else will probably do the job better.
Post by: Scaredgirl on April 27, 2010, 03:14:08 pm
By the way, I could try to write a Java Applet to calculate QI (could be yours formula to calculate it, or mine, or even both), but if you prefer some other technology then someone else will probably do the job better.Sure, go for it.
Post by: Snowstorm on April 27, 2010, 10:25:58 pm
I don't believe that assigning flat values to cards in decks can be used in this way.. decks have different aims and speeds, but i think by marrying up a curve of what you expect to use against what can be produced might help you to go some way towards working out ideal tower numbers.
Post by: Bloodshadow on April 28, 2010, 12:22:13 am
When calculating QI, maybe we should do each element in the deck separately. For example, if you have a Fire/Earth duo deck, you should calculate the QI of the Fire part (total :fire cost divided by number of Burning Pillars), and calculate the QI for the Earth part (total :earth cost divided by the number of Stone Pillars), then add them together. If you have a rainbow deck that uses all 12 elements, then your deck is going to be divided into 12 components and calculated separately; how this works with Quantum Pillars, I'm not sure yet, but you could simply use the number of Quantum Pillars divided by three as the denominator in all 12 components.
How would this help with calculating Nova and Supernova? For example, in the Light section of your rainbow deck, you might only use a total of 6 :light for the Sundials; in that case, if you have 6 Supernovas, the :light generated by them is obviously going to count as -6 instead of -12, because excess Light quanta can't be used to pay for other elements. This way, 6 Supernovas would not count as -144.
BTW, don't forget your Mark; that should count as an extra pillar.
EDIT: Doh! I think I just saw Xinef saying basically the same thing as I said above. Ninja fail... :P
Post by: coinich on April 28, 2010, 11:55:45 pm
Also, your commas confused me until this very day. Across the pond, we use periods instead of those silly comma things. :P
Post by: Essence on May 07, 2010, 04:50:25 pm
Quote
Quantum Pillars and all Towers would have their own formula.I've been, as an ad hoc rule, treating (non-Quantum) Towers as though they were Pillars with an "Ability Cost" of -1, and the results have been near-perfection. For example, when I'm mindlessly pummeling AI3 with my mono-Water beatstick:
Code: [Select]
6rn 6rn 6rn 6rn 7gk 7gk 7gk 7gk 7gk 7gk 7gk 7gk 7gk 7gk 7gk 7gk 7gk 7gk 7gk 7gm 7gm 7gm 7gm 7gm 7gm 7gt 7gt 7gt 7gt 7gtI used to run 14 Towers, 4 SoGs, 6 Crawlers, and 6 Dragons.
The card cost was (11*6)+(4*6)+(4*2)=66+24+8=98.
The ability cost was -14, for a total cost of 84, /14 pillars =6 -- just the opposite of what SG suggested was the right 'swing' for a speed deck.
So I removed 1 Dragon and added 1 Tower, as above.
Now, the card cost is (11*5)+(4*6)+(4*2)=55+24+8=87.
The new ability cost is -15, for a total cost of 72, /15 pillars is 4.8 -- and the deck does, in fact, play noticably better for it.
The question is, can we talk PlanPlan into adding a new line to the bottom of the Deck Generator between the electrum cost and the author that describes the QI?
Post by: Scaredgirl on May 07, 2010, 05:11:58 pm
Hm.. that's interesting and might work. I need to try it.QuoteQuantum Pillars and all Towers would have their own formula.I've been, as an ad hoc rule, treating (non-Quantum) Towers as though they were Pillars with an "Ability Cost" of -1, and the results have been near-perfection.
As for asking Planplan to change the deck generator thing.. I think we should first fully establish what this QI is. This way we don't need to change the code each time we make changes to QI.
Post by: Demagog on May 14, 2010, 05:08:17 am
Post by: miniwally on May 15, 2010, 10:30:47 pm
Post by: Hobnob5000 on May 20, 2010, 03:42:15 pm
For every 5 towers, count as 6 pillars. If there is 4 towers, I count as 5 pillars, but for a group of 3 or below, I just count as pillars.
For example, with one of my decks
Code: [Select]
7jo 7jo 7jo 7jo 7jo 7jo 7jo 7jo 7jo 7jo 7jo 7jo 7jo 7jo 7jo 7jo 7jo 7jq 7jq 7jq 7jq 7jq 7jq 7js 7js 7ju 7k0 7k1 7k2 7k2Using my method, including the mark a a pillar, the QI of my deck is 5.48 (2 d.p)
Using Essence's method, including the mark as a pillar, the QI of my deck is 5.44 (2 d.p)
I prefer my method because, well... I made it ;D
Essences would be easier to do though
Post by: gutsyDuck on May 26, 2010, 08:36:37 am
Your approach is good but at the same time it's false.
good : you got a kind of objective view of the proportion of quanta in your deck. You add some variable to have a better guess.
Bad : most of time people think their deck as a block. got 40 cards, got 3 nova -> got 3/40 chance to draw nova.
A better way of thninking a deck is water. You got a flow of cards, and what is important is the way the card come.
All of this is only probability. conditional probability to be exact. When you try to guess if you got enought pillar, you are asking for something very very complicated. Your question could be "after taking 7 cards, what is the probability to draw the card I need".
Let's try something, just divide card into three classes : pillar, creature, spell. with a 40 cards deck as follow : 10p/20c/10s.
probability to successively draw pillar is : 10/40 (first draw), 9/39 ( second draw ), 8/38, 7/37 and so on....
if you understand all, probability to successively draw a creature cards is : 20/40, 19/39, 18/38 ....
so the probability to draw 3 pillars as the three first cards is : 10/40 * 9/39 * 8/38 = 720 /59280 = 0.01214
but probability to have 3 pillars in your first hand is very different :
you can draw pillar like this (the possibility area ) P is for pillars, C for other cards
P P P C C C C -> this one is 0.01214
P P C C C C P
P P C C C P C
P P C C P C C
...
C C C C P P P
probability of the second line is :
10/40 * 9/39 * 8/34 -> 720 / 53040 -> 0.01357
Probability of the last line is : 10/36 * 9/35 * 8/34 -> 720 /42840 -> 0.01680
This is not exactly what we want to know. Go back to the question : your are right when you put your QI,it'is the number quantun I need to play. I element there is something diffrent from MTG, your quantum is a pool were quantun stay until it's used. Appear another question : how many time can I wait to play my card ? Does it make a difference if I can play my card in the second turn instead of the third one ? answer to this question depend of how the game occur. In the first turn you can wait. In the last turn you can't.
an easiest question : knowing the probability to draw a pillar in the eigth draw knowing that I already draw X pillar ?
I don't what to tell you that your idea is wrong, it seem to be a good tool to estimate a deck. But if you want to be very accurate in deck building the road is long and complicated. Two things worth knowing : richard garfield (mtg) build is game when he was studying probability (and now he is a mathematic's doctor, speciality : probability ;) ) . Most of Pro MTG player are now pro poker's player.
PS: I write all of these in a raw without coffee, It's (surely) confuse, I'll try to re-write it latter...
Post by: Svenningen on June 03, 2010, 06:36:34 am
Anyhow when I do QI, I count mark as 1pillar, wich is quite obvious.
I was also thinking about the mentioned doing each element apart.. I believe its not correct for duo/trio decks to do them all in one bulk. then u wont know wich ur high/low on.
Post by: Hobnob5000 on June 03, 2010, 07:49:29 am
I was also thinking about the mentioned doing each element apart.. I believe its not correct for duo/trio decks to do them all in one bulk. then u wont know wich ur high/low on.Yeah, I do all of my elements separately in duo decks. I find it works better
Post by: Thelonesun on June 12, 2010, 06:31:48 pm
Post by: Xinef on June 13, 2010, 05:14:03 pm
What about Firefly Queens? They produce monsters that produce :light quanta every turn. How would I count those if I use Light?I'd take the average number of Fireflies you end with, calculate the square root and consider it to be the amount of light pillars you have, but that's a rough guess.
Post by: RavingRabbid on June 15, 2010, 08:36:53 am
Post by: midg3333 on June 19, 2010, 06:44:57 am
For those who don't want to read the large wall of text, here's a quick summary of what I am saying:
To estimate the QI more accurately, you should take into account:
-how many turns (on average) your deck will take to kill a 100hp or 200hp opponent, and how that affects quanta usage
-what your deck consists of, and whether or not you will want to play those cards straight away or not
-how often you will use creature abilities and which will overlap
-take into account a mark (i suggest is counts as about 2.5 pillars)
There definitely has to be something different for the mark... it is much better than a pillar. Would it be more accurate to make a mark equal 2 pillars, maybe more? On average, you get any given card approximately halfway through the game on average, so on average a mark, which you get at the beginning of the game every time without fail, will generate 2x that of a pillar. It would probably generate more though for 2 reasons:
1) you hardly ever go through every single card in your deck, unless it is a stall deck and/or an OTK deck.
2) later in the game, you will tend to have an excess of quanta because you have more pillars and therefore more quanta gain per turn so you won't use up all your quanta every turn in late game, whereas it is very easily possible early-game.
for those reasons, i would be more inclined to make a mark worth 2.5-3 pillars. Look at the standard upped speed poison deck, for instance. It will generally use 6 congeals and 6 chrysaora = 12 water quanta. This is powered by a mark. if a mark = 2 pillars, 12/2=6. If a mark = 2.5 pillars, 12/2.5=4.8, and if a mark = 3 pillars 12/3=4. From what I have seen, a mark sufficiently powers a speed poison deck's water usage, so i would be inclined to say 2.5 is about right (assuming the optimal QI is about 5).
Also, I know it would be hard to factor all this in, but the factors that would affect quantum usage are:
1) game time - how long your game goes for
2) frequency of the use of creature abilities
3) type of card
to expand:
1) the longer the game goes on for, the more time you have to generate quanta.
-A stall deck lets you last longer, allowing you to generate more quanta
-a higher HP opponent will take longer to kill, allowing you to generate more quanta in that time period (this would only be factored in if you were fighting FG's or halfbloods),
-here's a big one: the average damage that your deck deals. If you have a speed deck that deals heaps of damage really quickly, you will have less time to generate quanta, so it would greatly affect the time a match takes.
2) Lets face it, an average of 1 or 2 uses for an ability isn't really that accurate.
-the ability will be used more times if it is:
(a) cheaper -or-
(b) belonging to a lower cost creature.
I'm not so sure about the cheaper cost ability, because the QI is trying to prevent quanta issues like that, but (b) definitely makes a difference. A chrysaora that costs 1 water quantum will start using its ability long before say, a nymph because it gets out so much sooner, therefore the ability will be usable earlier.
-the type of ability: an ability such as chrysaora's poison will be used much more often than an ability such as an arctic squids freeze, because freeze requires a target. Then for spells requiring a target, it gets really confusing with certain specifications for the target (such as paradox) and those that can be used both defensively and offensively (mutate, rage potion), and that math is way too confusing and complicated, so i won't go into that.
-overlapping creature abilities. If you have 6 maxwell's demons out, chances are you won't use each one's ability too many times, creature abilities with targets would be used less the more creatures you had with that ability.
3) creature cards and permanents can be played effectively more often than spells. Spells such as steal, earthquake, parallel universe, etc. require certain conditions to be used effectively, whereas creatures will often be more effective when played sooner. Permanents are then between creatures and spells, because some are situational (you don't need more than 1 sundial at a time, same with dim shields, or too many hourglasses), whereas others such as SoG or feral bond can be played straight away.
Overall, to estimate the QI more accurately, you should take into account:
-how many turns (on average) your deck will take to kill a 100hp or 200hp opponent, and how that affects quanta usage
-what your deck consists of, and whether or not you will want to play those cards straight away or not
-how often you will use creature abilities and which will overlap
-take into account a mark (i suggest is counts as about 2.5 pillars)
Post by: jmdt on June 21, 2010, 02:07:30 am
Post by: bojengles77 on June 21, 2010, 03:41:59 am
Post by: Selenbrant on June 23, 2010, 07:45:22 pm
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,8295.msg102495#msg102495
Post by: thekillergame on June 28, 2010, 07:48:55 pm
Post by: PuppyChow on June 29, 2010, 03:41:29 pm
Yes, QI is a great way to figure out if you have a good number of pillars in the deck. But there's more to it than just calculating it and deciding if it's below or above 5.
I keep seeing people just posting on decks what the deck's QI is, and saying it's too high just based on what the number is. Don't do that.
For instance: Mono Aether Stall (6x dim shields, 6x phase dragon, 2x lobo, 16x pillar). While this deck has a high QI, it is perfectly fine because you don't need to play every card as you draw it. You just need to get 1-2 dragons out and have enough quanta to play a shield every 3 turns and you just play more dragons when you have the extra quanta. So a high QI is fine.
Or antimatter stall decks. For instance, my mono entropy I use a lot has a QI of 7.5, but since it relies on only being able to play the antimatters early and then play dragons when you have the extra quanta, it works just fine.
So when criticizing a deck because of its QI, consider the type of deck it is. Don't blindly say it's too high or too low.
Post by: the dictator on July 12, 2010, 11:21:00 am
In speed decks, you need to have a quantum index of 5 or less, as SG said (yes all the decks she tested are speed deck, except the aether one, and that one has a higher QI).
In stall decks however, your pillars will generate more quanta, because there are more turns, so your QI can be higher.
O, and I like to think of devourers as darkness pillars with a summoning cost of 2, so for QI I count them as pillars with a cost, just like towers are calculated as pillars with a summoning cost of -1.
Post by: Leerest on July 12, 2010, 05:06:58 pm
O, and I like to think of devourers as darkness pillars with a summoning cost of 2, so for QI I count them as pillars with a cost, just like towers are calculated as pillars with a summoning cost of -1.Actually a good point, i will consider it for some cards from now on.
Post by: Chatix on July 12, 2010, 07:47:11 pm
Thanks!
Post by: the dictator on July 12, 2010, 09:34:10 pm
I totally agree with puppychow, 5 isn't always the optimal number.O, forgot to mention, the same thing can be done for other quanta generating cards: firefly, elite firefly, darnselfly, ray of light, gnome gemfinder and brimstone eater.
In speed decks, you need to have a quantum index of 5 or less, as SG said (yes all the decks she tested are speed deck, except the aether one, and that one has a higher QI).
In stall decks however, your pillars will generate more quanta, because there are more turns, so your QI can be higher.
O, and I like to think of devourers as darkness pillars with a summoning cost of 2, so for QI I count them as pillars with a cost, just like towers are calculated as pillars with a summoning cost of -1.
(Elite) Firefly would be a bit different of course, because you can calculate them as light or fire pillar, but they cost air. (but we already said you should calculate each element apart).
Post by: Scaredgirl on July 13, 2010, 12:11:09 pm
O, and I like to think of devourers as darkness pillars with a summoning cost of 2, so for QI I count them as pillars with a costI don't think that gives accurate results because your opponent will much more likely get rid of your Devourers than your Pillars. Currently there's only one dedicated anti-Pillar card (Earthquake), but there are tons of creature control cards. Sure all permanent removals can be used for Pillars as well but they rarely do.
Same thing goes with your post above.
Post by: the dictator on July 13, 2010, 06:57:35 pm
Look at this:
Code: [Select]
5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5um 5um 5um 5um 5um 5um 5uq 5uq 5uu 5uu 5uu 5uu 5uu 5uv 5uv 5uv 5uv 5uv 5uvWhen calculating this deck:
Cost: 6*2 (devourer) + 6*2*-1 (devourer skill) + 2*3 + 5*4 + 6*5 = 56
Pillars: 11
QI=5,09
However when playing this deck, you will find yourself a lot of times stuck with useless quanta (you easily get 30+ darkness quanta).
That is why I tweaked it a little to:
Code: [Select]
5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5um 5um 5um 5um 5um 5um 5up 5up 5uq 5uq 5uq 5uu 5uu 5uu 5uu 5uu 5uv 5uv 5uv 5uv 5uv 5uvThis one has much better results, but when calculating your way, you will find a quanta index of:
Cost: 6*2 + 6*2*-1 + 2*3 + 3*3 + 5*4 + 6*5 = 65
Pillars = 8
QI = 8,125
This suggest you will always be short on quanta, but I didn't encounter any problems (well, only the real bad draws, but on average, it worked fine).
When calculating my way, you will find:
Cost: 6*2 + 2*3 + 3*3 + 5*4 + 6*5 = 77
'Pillars' = 8+6=14
QI = 5,5
This number is a lot closer to the truth. This deck is not pretty fast, so your quanta index can be a little higher than 5 (mentioned earlier), and 5,5 is what it seams like, comparing to others.
Another note: when counting my mark, I count it as 2,5 pillar, when it is my only source of that elements quanta (like here).
Most people will feel the mark is enough to use the skills of the devourers and the gargoyles, but when counting it as a normal pillar you will find a quanta index of 12. When counting it a 2,5 pillar, you get a QI of 4,8 which is what is looks like. (same applies for speed poison for example, with 6 freezes and 6 chrysoara's on you mark only).
I count it as 2 pillars when there are only a not many pillars (less than 5) of that element, and as 1,5 pillars when there are a lot more (like in monodecks), because the lonely little mark will be relatively less effective when there are also pillars around.
Post by: jmdt on July 13, 2010, 07:21:13 pm
Well, I got good results doing so.
Look at this:Code: [Select]5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5um 5um 5um 5um 5um 5um 5uq 5uq 5uu 5uu 5uu 5uu 5uu 5uv 5uv 5uv 5uv 5uv 5uvWhen calculating this deck:
Cost: 6*2 (devourer) + 6*2*-1 (devourer skill) + 2*3 + 5*4 + 6*5 = 56
Pillars: 11
QI=5,09
However when playing this deck, you will find yourself a lot of times stuck with useless quanta (you easily get 30+ darkness quanta).
That is why I tweaked it a little to:Code: [Select]5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5um 5um 5um 5um 5um 5um 5up 5up 5uq 5uq 5uq 5uu 5uu 5uu 5uu 5uu 5uv 5uv 5uv 5uv 5uv 5uvThis one has much better results, but when calculating your way, you will find a quanta index of:
Cost: 6*2 + 6*2*-1 + 2*3 + 3*3 + 5*4 + 6*5 = 65
Pillars = 8
QI = 8,125
This suggest you will always be short on quanta, but I didn't encounter any problems (well, only the real bad draws, but on average, it worked fine).
When calculating my way, you will find:
Cost: 6*2 + 2*3 + 3*3 + 5*4 + 6*5 = 77
'Pillars' = 8+6=14
QI = 5,5
This number is a lot closer to the truth. This deck is not pretty fast, so your quanta index can be a little higher than 5 (mentioned earlier), and 5,5 is what it seams like, comparing to others.
Another note: when counting my mark, I count it as 2,5 pillar, when it is my only source of that elements quanta (like here).
Most people will feel the mark is enough to use the skills of the devourers and the gargoyles, but when counting it as a normal pillar you will find a quanta index of 12. When counting it a 2,5 pillar, you get a QI of 4,8 which is what is looks like. (same applies for speed poison for example, with 6 freezes and 6 chrysoara's on you mark only).
I count it as 2 pillars when there are only a not many pillars (less than 5) of that element, and as 1,5 pillars when there are a lot more (like in monodecks), because the lonely little mark will be relatively less effective when there are also pillars around.
The mark does only count as 1 pillar. It is a permanent pillar so how can it do anything else. The QI is essentially the number of turns it takes all the pillars to generate the quanta to play all the cards. In the case of this deck you have 12 cards that use earth quanta and generate 1 earth quanta every turn. Hence it would take twelve turns to generate enough earth quanta to use the earth effect of each of the 12 cards so the QI is definately 12. Odds are you will never need all of the mark quanta before the game is over as it would take 6 turns just to draw those 12 cards, assuming you drew no pillars at all. It is ok to have a QI of 12 from the mark as long as it is a bunch of cheap effects or spells.
Yes a devourer, especially a burrowed one, definately counts as a pillar for all intensive purposes.
The ultimate quastion is...on average do you have too much, not enough, or the right amount of quanta for the particular deck. The answer varies from deck to deck. For a life deck I like to dump 2 cards per turn early for a speed advantage so I run a lower QI so I always have tons of quanta early. In a stall deck I run, I have the quanta balanced so that I have just enough quanta to play a phase shield every 3 turns. Is the QI high, yes, but I'm not trying to play multiple phase shields evey turn so its ok.
Post by: the dictator on July 13, 2010, 09:53:55 pm
Well, I think you can count the mark as more than one pillar, because you have to DRAW a pillar before it takes effect. All the cards in your deck need to be drawn first, so you can compare them to each other in cost and gain, but you can't count your mark the same, as you don't have to draw it.Well, I got good results doing so.
Look at this:Code: [Select]5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5um 5um 5um 5um 5um 5um 5uq 5uq 5uu 5uu 5uu 5uu 5uu 5uv 5uv 5uv 5uv 5uv 5uvWhen calculating this deck:
Cost: 6*2 (devourer) + 6*2*-1 (devourer skill) + 2*3 + 5*4 + 6*5 = 56
Pillars: 11
QI=5,09
However when playing this deck, you will find yourself a lot of times stuck with useless quanta (you easily get 30+ darkness quanta).
That is why I tweaked it a little to:Code: [Select]5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5um 5um 5um 5um 5um 5um 5up 5up 5uq 5uq 5uq 5uu 5uu 5uu 5uu 5uu 5uv 5uv 5uv 5uv 5uv 5uvThis one has much better results, but when calculating your way, you will find a quanta index of:
Cost: 6*2 + 6*2*-1 + 2*3 + 3*3 + 5*4 + 6*5 = 65
Pillars = 8
QI = 8,125
This suggest you will always be short on quanta, but I didn't encounter any problems (well, only the real bad draws, but on average, it worked fine).
When calculating my way, you will find:
Cost: 6*2 + 2*3 + 3*3 + 5*4 + 6*5 = 77
'Pillars' = 8+6=14
QI = 5,5
This number is a lot closer to the truth. This deck is not pretty fast, so your quanta index can be a little higher than 5 (mentioned earlier), and 5,5 is what it seams like, comparing to others.
Another note: when counting my mark, I count it as 2,5 pillar, when it is my only source of that elements quanta (like here).
Most people will feel the mark is enough to use the skills of the devourers and the gargoyles, but when counting it as a normal pillar you will find a quanta index of 12. When counting it a 2,5 pillar, you get a QI of 4,8 which is what is looks like. (same applies for speed poison for example, with 6 freezes and 6 chrysoara's on you mark only).
I count it as 2 pillars when there are only a not many pillars (less than 5) of that element, and as 1,5 pillars when there are a lot more (like in monodecks), because the lonely little mark will be relatively less effective when there are also pillars around.
The mark does only count as 1 pillar. It is a permanent pillar so how can it do anything else. The QI is essentially the number of turns it takes all the pillars to generate the quanta to play all the cards. In the case of this deck you have 12 cards that use earth quanta and generate 1 earth quanta every turn. Hence it would take twelve turns to generate enough earth quanta to use the earth effect of each of the 12 cards so the QI is definately 12. Odds are you will never need all of the mark quanta before the game is over as it would take 6 turns just to draw those 12 cards, assuming you drew no pillars at all. It is ok to have a QI of 12 from the mark as long as it is a bunch of cheap effects or spells.
Yes a devourer, especially a burrowed one, definately counts as a pillar for all intensive purposes.
The ultimate quastion is...on average do you have too much, not enough, or the right amount of quanta for the particular deck. The answer varies from deck to deck. For a life deck I like to dump 2 cards per turn early for a speed advantage so I run a lower QI so I always have tons of quanta early. In a stall deck I run, I have the quanta balanced so that I have just enough quanta to play a phase shield every 3 turns. Is the QI high, yes, but I'm not trying to play multiple phase shields evey turn so its ok.
I mean, you get your pillars on average halfway in your deck, so they will only get you 15 turns of quanta (when going to deckout, with a 30 card deck). You mark however, will get you 23 turns of quanta, so you can't calculate them the same.
Saying a quanta index of 12 is ok, is like saying, this deck works, so this quanta index is ok, instead of saying, this deck works, and what exceptions are there compared to 'normal' decks, and when I calculate with them another way, what quanta index to I get then.
Post by: Scaredgirl on July 14, 2010, 06:30:09 am
Yes a devourer, especially a burrowed one, definately counts as a pillar for all intensive purposes.You need to come up with something better than that. :)
Reason why a Devourer will never produce as much quanta as a Pillar is because Devourer is more likely to be removed from the game. EQ is only real anti-Pillar card, but there are tons of anti-Devourer cards. If you have two decks, one with 18 Pillars and one with 12 Pillars and 6 Devourers, the first one will produce more quanta on average.
I'm not saying counting Devourers as Pillars give totally wrong results. I'm just saying that it's not a "perfect" solution.
Post by: the dictator on July 14, 2010, 12:43:17 pm
Counting devourers as they are giving only 2 quanta is even more far from perfect. And removing a burrowed devourer is harder than removing a pillar. Because, besides EQ, you can also use deflags, pulvy, steal or butterfly effect. And the devourer can only be removed by fire wall and thorn carapace, but that needs a nightfall.Yes a devourer, especially a burrowed one, definately counts as a pillar for all intensive purposes.You need to come up with something better than that. :)
Reason why a Devourer will never produce as much quanta as a Pillar is because Devourer is more likely to be removed from the game. EQ is only real anti-Pillar card, but there are tons of anti-Devourer cards. If you have two decks, one with 18 Pillars and one with 12 Pillars and 6 Devourers, the first one will produce more quanta on average.
I'm not saying counting Devourers as Pillars give totally wrong results. I'm just saying that it's not a "perfect" solution.
Post by: Nilleeni on July 28, 2010, 11:28:52 am
My deck has 3,21 when i count RoLs as pillars...
Post by: jmdt on July 28, 2010, 05:22:12 pm
Should i count Ray of Lights as pillars?I would personally, but many people disagree. I look at QI as TOTAL quanta generation for the deck, and this includes creatures that generate quanta.
My deck has 3,21 when i count RoLs as pillars...
Post by: the dictator on July 28, 2010, 06:17:52 pm
Should i count Ray of Lights as pillars?To quote myself
My deck has 3,21 when i count RoLs as pillars...
I totally agree with puppychow, 5 isn't always the optimal number.O, forgot to mention, the same thing can be done for other quanta generating cards: firefly, elite firefly, darnselfly, ray of light, gnome gemfinder and brimstone eater.
In speed decks, you need to have a quantum index of 5 or less, as SG said (yes all the decks she tested are speed deck, except the aether one, and that one has a higher QI).
In stall decks however, your pillars will generate more quanta, because there are more turns, so your QI can be higher.
O, and I like to think of devourers as darkness pillars with a summoning cost of 2, so for QI I count them as pillars with a cost, just like towers are calculated as pillars with a summoning cost of -1.
(Elite) Firefly would be a bit different of course, because you can calculate them as light or fire pillar, but they cost air. (but we already said you should calculate each element apart).
[/quote]
Well, I got good results doing so.
Look at this:Code: [Select]5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5um 5um 5um 5um 5um 5um 5uq 5uq 5uu 5uu 5uu 5uu 5uu 5uv 5uv 5uv 5uv 5uv 5uv
When calculating this deck:
Cost: 6*2 (devourer) + 6*2*-1 (devourer skill) + 2*3 + 5*4 + 6*5 = 56
Pillars: 11
QI=5,09
However when playing this deck, you will find yourself a lot of times stuck with useless quanta (you easily get 30+ darkness quanta).
That is why I tweaked it a little to:Code: [Select]5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5uk 5um 5um 5um 5um 5um 5um 5up 5up 5uq 5uq 5uq 5uu 5uu 5uu 5uu 5uu 5uv 5uv 5uv 5uv 5uv 5uv
This one has much better results, but when calculating your way, you will find a quanta index of:
Cost: 6*2 + 6*2*-1 + 2*3 + 3*3 + 5*4 + 6*5 = 65
Pillars = 8
QI = 8,125
This suggest you will always be short on quanta, but I didn't encounter any problems (well, only the real bad draws, but on average, it worked fine).
When calculating my way, you will find:
Cost: 6*2 + 2*3 + 3*3 + 5*4 + 6*5 = 77
'Pillars' = 8+6=14
QI = 5,5
This number is a lot closer to the truth. This deck is not pretty fast, so your quanta index can be a little higher than 5 (mentioned earlier), and 5,5 is what it seams like, comparing to others.
Another note: when counting my mark, I count it as 2,5 pillar, when it is my only source of that elements quanta (like here).
Most people will feel the mark is enough to use the skills of the devourers and the gargoyles, but when counting it as a normal pillar you will find a quanta index of 12. When counting it a 2,5 pillar, you get a QI of 4,8 which is what is looks like. (same applies for speed poison for example, with 6 freezes and 6 chrysoara's on you mark only).
I count it as 2 pillars when there are only a not many pillars (less than 5) of that element, and as 1,5 pillars when there are a lot more (like in monodecks), because the lonely little mark will be relatively less effective when there are also pillars around.
Counting devourers as they are giving only 2 quanta is even more far from perfect. And removing a burrowed devourer is harder than removing a pillar. Because, besides EQ, you can also use deflags, pulvy, steal or butterfly effect. And the devourer can only be removed by fire wall and thorn carapace, but that needs a nightfall.Yes a devourer, especially a burrowed one, definately counts as a pillar for all intensive purposes.You need to come up with something better than that. :)
Reason why a Devourer will never produce as much quanta as a Pillar is because Devourer is more likely to be removed from the game. EQ is only real anti-Pillar card, but there are tons of anti-Devourer cards. If you have two decks, one with 18 Pillars and one with 12 Pillars and 6 Devourers, the first one will produce more quanta on average.
I'm not saying counting Devourers as Pillars give totally wrong results. I'm just saying that it's not a "perfect" solution.
I think Linkcat and Coinich are missing the point of this. This isn't about the Graveyard-produced Skeletons, this is about the stand-alone card. This is a matter of "Why should a player run Skeletons in his deck when there are far better cards to put in their place". Should the stand-alone card be buffed in someway that Graveyard Spawns aren't? Should the card just removed as a stand-alone so it can only be summoned via Graveyards? I mean, at least with Fire, Wind and Earth their pointless weak cards turn into Quanta sources when upgraded, and Light's weakling is free to cast, but Skeletons just kinda stay worthless.You can't change Skeleton without changing Graveyard and Boneyard. It just doesn't work. And yes, its meant to be a weak creature. Simply because it doesn't measure up to the vaunted RoL's utility doesn't mean that this card needs a buff. If we did that, we'd have to increase cards like Abomination to compete with the Blue Crawler.
Post by: coinich on August 14, 2010, 02:30:05 pm
Post by: guolin on August 14, 2010, 07:27:19 pm
So anyone take a gander at this with the new Pendulums? My gut instinct is to count the pendulums as .5 for each element (1 if you are one of the silly people who plays his/her pendulums w/ the same mark).Pendulums are rather confusing - I usually just playtest for optimal number rather than calculate it. That said, I think .5 is a good approximation, but it all depends on your deck.
Also, it's not silly using same-mark pendulums. :P The only thing you lose are electrum - in return you get semi-EQ protection.
Post by: jmdt on August 14, 2010, 07:38:20 pm
Post by: Scaredgirl on August 14, 2010, 08:52:34 pm
Goes slightly against the general consensus here, but looking at the rush decks I've explored I find the optimal deck for speed purposes generally ends up with a QI of around 4-4.5. Running a bit low helps dump the hand quicker and get an early advantage in damage.Yep. I, and many others, have been going for 4.5 for a long time now (we even talk about it on this topic if I'm not mistaken). That 5 I posted in the original post was just a hypothesis I made without any real testing because I wanted a nice even number, and somehow a lot of people assumed that it was the "magic number" :) During later testing I quickly realized that the optimal number for a fast deck is actually closer to 4. Like I said, I generally use about 4.5.
Post by: Bloodshadow on August 14, 2010, 11:25:40 pm
Post by: jmdt on August 14, 2010, 11:33:08 pm
So Pendulums count as 0.5 pillars for both elements? I think it might be more complicated than that. For example, would 12 Dark Pendulums with Aether Mark be equal to 6 Obsidian Pillars and 6 Aether Pillars? I think the difference is probably determined by your deck size.The way I would do it is this. I would count 12 Dark Pendalums as 6 Obsidian Pillars and 6 Aether Pillars if unupped. Upped I would do the same, but would also subtract 12 from the total cost of :darkness quanta used.
This would be the most accurate way to look at the total quanta generation of the deck. Its the same basic way as counting an other card such as a hammer toward half of each quanta used.
Post by: guolin on August 15, 2010, 12:25:24 am
Heh, but 5 is so easy to do in my head!Goes slightly against the general consensus here, but looking at the rush decks I've explored I find the optimal deck for speed purposes generally ends up with a QI of around 4-4.5. Running a bit low helps dump the hand quicker and get an early advantage in damage.Yep. I, and many others, have been going for 4.5 for a long time now (we even talk about it on this topic if I'm not mistaken). That 5 I posted in the original post was just a hypothesis I made without any real testing because I wanted a nice even number, and somehow a lot of people assumed that it was the "magic number" :) During later testing I quickly realized that the optimal number for a fast deck is actually closer to 4. Like I said, I generally use about 4.5.
That said, though, I usually build charge-style decks, so 5 is usually a good number for me anyways.
Also, jmdt's way of counting towers is briliant. I can't believe I didn't think of that.
Post by: BluePriest on August 21, 2010, 02:50:20 pm
1)How does QI work when there are multiple elements in a deck? Wouldnt you need a seperate QI for each element?
2)Is the formula on the main page the correct formula?
3)What has been the officially decided Way to take abilities into consideration?
Post by: jmdt on August 21, 2010, 04:38:18 pm
Im working on a program for quantum index right now. So Ive got a few questions.For a duo or trio, you calculate the QI separately for each element. Once you start using quantum pillars or going many cards over 30 the QI isn't as valid.
1)How does QI work when there are multiple elements in a deck? Wouldnt you need a seperate QI for each element?
2)Is the formula on the main page the correct formula?
3)What has been the officially decided Way to take abilities into consideration?
Count an ability you plan to use every turn (ffq's ability) twice and copunt conditional abilities (Maxwell's ability) once
Post by: BluePriest on August 22, 2010, 09:00:37 pm
Post by: Bloodshadow on August 22, 2010, 09:20:41 pm
What about Supernova? Im guessing it doesnt effect the entropy quanta at all, and it reduces the top number by 2 of the respective element for supernova correct? Then nova would just reduce the top number by 1 for all elements? And does deck size effect QI at all? Im trying to cover all my bases here. I dont like having to rewrite code, its a pain in the butt.For Nova and Supernova, it depends on what elements your deck uses. I think I've explained it somewhere in the past.
Yeah, look at page 3 and 4.
Post by: BluePriest on August 23, 2010, 12:55:50 am
:aether cards
Turquoise Nymph-Count twice?
Lobo-Count once?
Mindgate- Count Twice
Would that be correct?
Post by: miniwally on August 23, 2010, 01:40:32 am
Post by: Toimu13 on September 24, 2010, 02:02:14 am
Bookmarked, THANKS!
Post by: agentflare on November 15, 2010, 02:09:18 pm
I suppose you could calculate the QI of each individual element, but Pendulums give elements every other turn, throwing calculations off.
Problem 2: We need to take into account how long the game is expected to go.
If the expected TTW is ~7-10, then QI works perfectly. But if you run a stall, for example FFQ decks, then you'll have not enough quanta in the beginning, and too much in the end
Post by: Xinef on November 15, 2010, 02:53:51 pm
Problem 1: How do duos, trios, and quartets work?The simplest and usually good enough solution is to calculate each element individually and consider pendulums to be half of a pillar.
I suppose you could calculate the QI of each individual element, but Pendulums give elements every other turn, throwing calculations off.
There's also the important decision which mark to take, and from which element take the pendulums. Usually the mark should be of the element that you need early, but with pendulums you get the pendulum's base element one turn earlier than the other one, so eg. fractal devourer with darkness mark and aether pendulums will have a bit more darkness, but even upped won't be able to field devourers earlier than turn 3. On the other hand, aether mark with darkness pendulums might allow a turn 2 devourer (turn 1 upped), but would produce more aether overall... if not for the devourers, that is. Of course playing upped alters these calculations a bit.
Problem 2: We need to take into account how long the game is expected to go.Here the simplest solution, and the one most people are using I guess, is to find the best QI for a given type of deck. Generally rush decks work best with QI between 4 and 5, while control decks, denial, stall etc. work better with QI between 5 and 7. For rush deck, it is usually best if your hand is empty roughly the turn you win (eg. no excess quanta, no excess cards), so you can adjust QI trying to achieve this.
If the expected TTW is ~7-10, then QI works perfectly. But if you run a stall, for example FFQ decks, then you'll have not enough quanta in the beginning, and too much in the end
On the other hand, most slower decks shouldn't follow this path, since they need a lot of quanta in the beginning to take control of the field, and less quanta later, to keep the control. Thus naturally they have excess quanta in late game. One exception might be the decks using hourglasses to draw additional cards, so they might be able to use the excess quanta.
Post by: Kakugane on November 22, 2010, 12:26:00 pm
Post by: miniwally on November 23, 2010, 05:29:36 pm
I just want to say thank to Scaredgirl. I've been plating this game for since sundial could draw two cards, and the thing I liked the least was changing elements to a new deck and all the fumbling around (losing electrum!) to fix it, then reverting back to a deck that works. Sticking with only one deck is kinda boring. I'm going to use this general idea to go look at decks I've archived and tweak them.That's weird considering sundial could never draw two cards.
Post by: Scaredgirl on November 24, 2010, 08:36:24 am
Kakugane is correct. Original Sundial lasted for two turns which meant you could draw two cards. This 50% less card drawing was probably the main reason why Sundial nerf was so devastating.I just want to say thank to Scaredgirl. I've been plating this game for since sundial could draw two cards, and the thing I liked the least was changing elements to a new deck and all the fumbling around (losing electrum!) to fix it, then reverting back to a deck that works. Sticking with only one deck is kinda boring. I'm going to use this general idea to go look at decks I've archived and tweak them.That's weird considering sundial could never draw two cards.
Post by: miniwally on November 24, 2010, 03:30:01 pm
The way he said it sounded like he meant as in each time you used it, it drew two cards. I considered he meant what you said but I thought he would've said since sundial lasted two turn rather than drew two cards. Thanks for your awesome decks back then :)Kakugane is correct. Original Sundial lasted for two turns which meant you could draw two cards. This 50% less card drawing was probably the main reason why Sundial nerf was so devastating.I just want to say thank to Scaredgirl. I've been plating this game for since sundial could draw two cards, and the thing I liked the least was changing elements to a new deck and all the fumbling around (losing electrum!) to fix it, then reverting back to a deck that works. Sticking with only one deck is kinda boring. I'm going to use this general idea to go look at decks I've archived and tweak them.That's weird considering sundial could never draw two cards.
Post by: Demut on November 24, 2010, 05:22:55 pm
Post by: Zuphix on November 25, 2010, 04:16:59 pm
They would produce the same ammount on average (except for the fact you have to pay to summon a devourer, but that has already been taken into account)Yes a devourer, especially a burrowed one, definately counts as a pillar for all intensive purposes.You need to come up with something better than that. :)
Reason why a Devourer will never produce as much quanta as a Pillar is because Devourer is more likely to be removed from the game. EQ is only real anti-Pillar card, but there are tons of anti-Devourer cards. If you have two decks, one with 18 Pillars and one with 12 Pillars and 6 Devourers, the first one will produce more quanta on average.
I'm not saying counting Devourers as Pillars give totally wrong results. I'm just saying that it's not a "perfect" solution.
Post by: wei2912 on December 02, 2010, 03:07:21 pm
Post by: Drusyc on January 02, 2011, 11:29:48 pm
Devourer costs 2 :darkness, has 2 :darkness, and can generate 1 :darkness per turn, including the summoned turn.
Even if Devourer is destroyed on the next turn, it has generated 1 :darkness to offset its cost.
Devourer is now 1 :darkness for the QI.
Being generous and assuming a non-rush deck will contain, at any given point in time, 4-6 creature control cards, a Devourer will in most casts survive for 1-3 turns.
The following will assume a 40 card deck with 5 creature control cards.
r is the number of CC remaining in the deck.
n is the number of cards drawn.
So, that means at the start of any game, we have a complicated probability formula that I'll "simplify" (incorrectly for simplicity's sake) to (d/40)+(1/40-n) x 100% chance to draw these cards if none have been drawn, since any possible creature control card can occupy any particular spot in the deck.
Your first CC has a 14.75% base chance to be drawn.
Your second card, 12.56%.
Your third, 10.13%.
Your fourth, 7.70%.
Your last, 5.78%.
The probability of drawing all five in the starting hand is something like 1%, and it would be easier to show if I really wanted to plug in the numbers, but I don't know fractional exponents in my head. anyway;
The probability of drawing a card that can kill a devourer goes up as the game goes on, and the chances of having at least 2 CC by turn, say, 3, is rather high (60%+).
This means a Devourer has a lower chance of surviving, reducing the amount of quanta it can generate.
Let's assume we multiply the next set of values by (hp/3)+1, where hp is, well, the hp of the critter. I assume /3 because I'm assuming, through "efficient" play, that fire bolt and rain of fire are the baseline spells for dealing damage to critters, and that no one is hoarding quanta to pump the damage.
So, for the case of QI, include the cost of the creatures. In ScaredGirl's original example,
Quote
(http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/9469/darknessgrinder.jpg),
Let the base QI be (93-12)/12 = 6.75 as she calculated.
For the first two Devourers, subtract 1 per devourer.
For the next two, subtract 2 per devourer.
For and after that (I'm looking at FFQ right now), subtract 3.
In this case, we get 1+1+2+2+3+3, for a total of 12. If we apply this to our value, we get this:
(93-12-12)/12 = 5.75, which makes a ton of sense. If they were instead Pests, we would multiply 12 by (4/3)+1 rounded down to 2, estimating our QI to be (93-12-24)/12 = 4.75, which might be a bit of a stretch.
In the special case of FFQ, she costs 7 :air, her ability costs 2 :life to generate 1 :fire or :light; and can generate 2 fireflies per queen. so, if you were to have 2 Queens, that would be the equivalent of having 4 0 cost fireflies with HPs of 2, cutting the deck QI down by (x-6-towers)/towers.
At 3 queens, the third queen by assumption of these calculations would amount to (x-12+n-towers)/towers, where n = the number of fireflies you assault your opponent with.
...That's a lot of numbers.
It's also kinda confusing.
I'm gonna paraphrase myself:
Quote
Up to 2 Critters that generate quanta are worth (cost-(hp/3)-1)), rounded down.If someone manages to make sense of all of that, I hope it makes sense XD
The next two critters that generate quanta are worth (cost-(hp/3)+2)), rounded down.
Any critters after 4 that generate quanta are worth (cost-(hp/3)+3)), rounded down.
Post by: teffy on January 03, 2011, 01:17:43 am
Quote
So, that means at the start of any game, we have a complicated probability formula that I'll "simplify" (incorrectly for simplicity's sake) to (d/40)+(1/40-n) x 100% chance to draw these cards if none have been drawn, since any possible creature control card can occupy any particular spot in the deck.Can´t understand your formulas and your percentages. I know Hypergeometric Distribution and understand the formulas of it, but this doesn´t look like sth I know.
It makes sense to see the HP of creatures, the more HP a creature has, the longer it will survive.
But you can´t use the HP for the QI !
The worth of a hit point for the player is dependent on the cards we have in Elements.
The difference between a 3 HP creature and a 4 HP creature is big ( RoF, Fire Bolt, Owl´s Eye).
The difference between 1 HP and 2 HP normally not ("only" 2 shields kill the creature one turn later).
Devourers survive longer with an Earth Mark. And who kills devourers with spells except mass creature control ?.
Post by: TheForbiddenOracle on January 03, 2011, 01:53:55 am
Post by: jallenw on January 03, 2011, 05:59:00 am
Gah, too much formulating...Cards in deck = D
Quantum Pillars in deck = Q
Percent of Qpillars in deck = Q/D = Q%
Average number of pillars in starting hand = 7*Q% = Qs
Average number of turns you can survive without playing most expensive cost card= T
Number of pillars drawn and played during a game after first turn = (Q - Qs)(Q%-(Qs/D-7)T = Qp
Quanta generated by pillars in starting hand = 3Qs*(T+1) (Remove the +1 for non-upgraded pillars)
Quanta generated by pillars drawn = 3Qp*(Q%*T) (Use T-1 for non upgraded pillars)
Total Quanta Generated = (3Qs*(T+1))+3Qp*(Q%*T) = QT
Average Quanta of each element generated = QT/12
Cost of the most expensive card you have to play nearly every game in order to win.
Assuming miracle is your most expensive card, and you're not using supernovas or mark of life, then you need 12 light quanta before you die. Really, you have many other cards that will save you, but those are less expensive, so you are only concerned with producing enough for the most expensive one before you die.
I have 10 pillars in a 40 card deck
D=40, Q=10, Q%=.25,Qs=1.75,Qp =T*1.62525
QT = 3*1.75*(T+1)+3*T*1.62525*.25*T
(5.25T+5.25+1.2189375 *T^2)/12=12
5.25t+5.25+1.2189375*T^2 = 12*12=144
5.25+1.2189375*t = 138.75/t
t = 138.75/1.2189375t - 5.25/1.2189375
t = 138.75/1.2189375t - 4.30703
t = 8.7307060839
So with 10 pillars and a need to cast miracle every game to win, you would have to survive 9 turns before casting miracle. Of course, lets assume that 6 of your cards are supernovas.
Each supernova you draw effectively reduces the cost of the miracle from quantum generated by 2. Your average chance to draw a supernova in those turns is 7+T)/33-T. This means that in just 3 turns you have a 30% chance to have 2 supernovas, so we can safely assume that 2 supernovas is likely in every game. Now we just reduce the cost of our target card by 4.
With a cost of 8 we come to 5.25t+5.25+1.2189375*t^2=12*8=96
This resuts in t = 6.7396123218, so you need to survive for 7 turns, but in 6 turns, you actually have a %50 or better chance of drawing a 3rd supernova, so again the cost is reduced.
This gives us a result of t = 5.5535229926.
This means that with 10 quantum towers and 6 supernovas in a 40 card deck, you should have enough quanta to drop anything you need by the 6th turn.
Now go out there an make your algebra teachers proud by building rainbow decks.
Jallen
Post by: Drusyc on January 03, 2011, 06:09:10 pm
Quote
Can´t understand your formulas and your percentages. I know Hypergeometric Distribution and understand the formulas of it, but this doesn´t look like sth I know.I noted that's incorrectly simplified :P, but it was the easiest way to describe increasing chances of probability with a linear decrease in available options. The formula I'd love to use would be Xn= (1-1/qn)n, but plugging in the numbers would determine the chances to not draw the card, rather than the other way around. The below quote, while ridiculously accurate, is an algebraic interpretation of the above formula... but it's algebra, and algebra is limited.
Quote
Cards in deck = Dis, again, simplification of reality; the percentage of pillars in the deck increases as deck size decreases, and the percentage of pillars in the deck decreases as the deck increases. Calculus is required to calculate the exact average of drawn pillars; but of course that makes a difference of maybe a percentage or two.
Quantum Pillars in deck = Q
Percent of Qpillars in deck = Q/D = Q%
Average number of pillars in starting hand = 7*Q% = Qs
Post by: jallenw on January 03, 2011, 10:34:50 pm
Sure, you're method will bring a more accurate result, but there is no difference between 5.4XXX and 5.6XXX when dealing with indivisible integers. The practical result is 6.
Also, people here are more likely to be able to understand the algebraic equations more readily than the more complex calculus and such.
I suppose I could write a qbasic program right quick that asks you the number of cards in your deck and number of pillars, towers, q pillars, q towers, novas, supernovas, and quanta generating creatures. It would then run all the numbers through the equations automatically and report the average quanta production each turn and the total quanta production through the game, as well as running 1000 sample games with randomization in order to get a quick sample of brute force test data.
Then I could compile the program to an .exe file and provide it for download.
I could do all this, I mean, the qbasic shortcut is right on my toolbar... just take a few clicks, a little typing, a little math, a few test cycles...
Okay, after an hour or so I have the skeleton program. I'm going to play elements for a while. I'll finish the program at some point.
Post by: BluePriest on January 04, 2011, 12:44:49 am
Post by: EvaRia on January 04, 2011, 12:59:22 am
I find the most important thing in determining how much quanta you need is basically "How long am I planning on making the game last" and "Am I going to get all the Quanta I need by that time?"
As such, stall decks can generally afford to have a much higher QI because by the time they stall out, they have the quanta you need anyways.
In rush decks, the QI should be to the lower side because rushes need more quanta faster.
This is just my opinion though.
Post by: jmdt on January 05, 2011, 06:49:38 pm
I personally don't believe in QI.I agree with you in part, but mostly disagree. QI is VERY important, but at the same time the target QI is also dependant on what the deck is doing. I have effective decks with QI ranging anywhere from 3.5 to 8. Does this mean QI is broken...no.
I find the most important thing in determining how much quanta you need is basically "How long am I planning on making the game last" and "Am I going to get all the Quanta I need by that time?"
As such, stall decks can generally afford to have a much higher QI because by the time they stall out, they have the quanta you need anyways.
In rush decks, the QI should be to the lower side because rushes need more quanta faster.
This is just my opinion though.
When I first started deck building, I sucked (yeah I said it); solid deckbuilding is a learned skill. Studying QI really helped me to better understand and hence better build solid decks. When I first discovered QI, I develped a spreadsheet that allowed me to 'virtually' build decks. For a period there, I literally built every deck in a spreadsheet, forcing the quanta to be in the ~5.0 range. Regardless of everything else, a deck with a QI of ~5.0 will function well mechanically. It may suck in practice due to the strategy used, but you will generally find no excess quanata or shortage of quanta hindering the deck.
Over time studying popular decks that worked, I learned that rushes favor lower QI's (increasingly lower as the cards get more expensive) and that stalls can often fully function with only minimal quanta generation. I look at the target QI as a necessity factor with 5.0 being the average value for an average deck. Rushes need extra quanta early to get a field of damage out as quick as possible so you lower the target QI to compensate, and since a stall such as mono aether only needs to play an expensive shield every 3 turns (and even then you usually wait for the opponent to get out damage) as opposed to quickly after drawn the necessity of quanta generation is lowered and the target QI can be raised to compensate.Eventually I learned enough that I rarely use the spreadsheet now (except for upped pendulums) and can generally ballpark in initial design (its also quicker to just pull out the TI-83 to check).
Regardless of target QI value, only testing will reveal the ideal value for the particular deck. If I test a deck and I find I have too much quanta sitting around most of the time I either add some larger hitters for smaller ones or remove a pillar for something cheap. Conversely if my hand is sitting full most of the time, a dragon or 2 may need to go. To further hammer this point, someone (I believe kevkev) did a ttw of of 3 unupped mono :death with varying QI but essentially the same deck. The study showed that the deck with ttw closest to 5.0 had the fastest ttw. Again, with a high QI, critters could not come out quick enough and with too low a QI tere was not enough damage to go around.
So yeah I definately believe in QI, but there a number of myths that have developed about QI that need debunking.
(I should expand that to a wiki article, lol)
Post by: Vyrys_Complex on February 03, 2011, 02:59:54 am
We were having an issue where larger decks had unusually high QI ratings, right?
Divide [QI formula] by deck size and multiply by 30? QI remains the same for thirty-card decks but is "normalized" as the deck grows larger. (Or would this make it too complicated? After all, draw cards will throw it off.)
Post by: Essence on February 03, 2011, 11:16:51 am
Post by: RootRanger on February 04, 2011, 02:41:07 am
Post by: UTAlan on March 12, 2011, 11:09:48 pm
Post by: Xinef on March 13, 2011, 10:44:28 am
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,5672.0.html
If I remember correctly, I declared my attempts too at some point, but a higher priority project appeared soon enough so I had to stop pretty much as I was still designing the GUI. Puppychow's attempts are probably more advanced, but I haven't seen him for quite a while.
Post by: UTAlan on March 16, 2011, 09:00:08 pm
Quantum-Index.com (http://Quantum-Index.com).
I'm open to constructive criticism, so let me know what you all think. I still have yet to read this thread in it's entirety, so there is certainly room for improvement, but this is a good starting point. As of now, all cards have been added and I did my best to accurately measure the quanta cost/gain per card. I'm hoping to put this info on the site soon, but for now, I put a spreadsheet online (https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AtIJScFz1sS7dEtDbnpacjFFTDZCZ2NwMW1zQzBxaVE&hl=en).
Post by: pikachufan2164 on March 16, 2011, 09:55:10 pm
I may need to start my own thread for this, but for now this seems an appropriate place to put it:Very nice :)
Quantum-Index.com (http://Quantum-Index.com).
I'm open to constructive criticism, so let me know what you all think. I still have yet to read this thread in it's entirety, so there is certainly room for improvement, but this is a good starting point. As of now, all cards have been added and I did my best to accurately measure the quanta cost/gain per card. I'm hoping to put this info on the site soon, but for now, I put a spreadsheet online (https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AtIJScFz1sS7dEtDbnpacjFFTDZCZ2NwMW1zQzBxaVE&hl=en).
There are a few things that aren't quite correct with the calculation, though.
1. The mark is not factored into the calculation. It should count as a pillar for the element in question (the lack of a mark consideration messes up calculations involving pendulums).
2. Elements are not QI'ed separately. Each element should have its own QI analysis done (i.e. if I had a :death / :darkness deck, then I would need to QI the :death portion, and then do a QI on the :darkness portion).
3. Ability activation costs are not done properly. They should only be accounted for if that element is actually usable in the deck. Also, there may be a need to count ability costs once (if it's situational), twice (if it's advantageous to use every turn), or none at all (if the ability isn't meant to be used for the deck in question).
I'm not entirely sure on the QI calculation of cards like Quantum Tower, Nova, Supernova, Fractal, Miracle, and Sky Blitz -- some thoughts on how to calculate those should hopefully be in this thread somewhere.
Post by: UTAlan on March 16, 2011, 10:36:48 pm
1. The mark is not factored into the calculation. It should count as a pillar for the element in question (the lack of a mark consideration messes up calculations involving pendulums).This has been added. I meant to do this before posting here, but forgot to go back to it. ::)
Quote
2. Elements are not QI'ed separately. Each element should have its own QI analysis done (i.e. if I had a :death / :darkness deck, then I would need to QI the :death portion, and then do a QI on the :darkness portion).This is something I intend on doing soon. I built my data around that concept, as I am already storing the quanta cost/mark to play the card, as well as the cost/mark for the special ability. This is fairly trivial for cards like Lava Destroyers, but gets more complicated for cards like Leaf Dragons.
Quote
3. Ability activation costs are not done properly. They should only be accounted for if that element is actually usable in the deck. Also, there may be a need to count ability costs once (if it's situational), twice (if it's advantageous to use every turn), or none at all (if the ability isn't meant to be used for the deck in question).This is a little daunting, but it can be done. (If quanta generation for a particular mark is 0, ignore its costs.) It'll probably look more feasible once (2) is done.
Thanks for the feedback!
Post by: RootRanger on March 16, 2011, 11:28:46 pm
Post by: Crimsonthorn on March 17, 2011, 02:20:53 pm
Total Cost of Cards: 110
Total Cost of Abilities: -25
Number of Pillars: 2.0
QI
Your QI is 42.5, which means you have too few pillars.
6 RoL, 6 Cremate etc
Post by: Jangoo on April 13, 2011, 09:52:11 am
I may need to start my own thread for this, but for now this seems an appropriate place to put it:Please do start your own thread for this ... otherwise it will be lost instantly.
Quantum-Index.com (http://Quantum-Index.com).
I'm open to constructive criticism, so let me know what you all think. I still have yet to read this thread in it's entirety, so there is certainly room for improvement, but this is a good starting point. As of now, all cards have been added and I did my best to accurately measure the quanta cost/gain per card. I'm hoping to put this info on the site soon, but for now, I put a spreadsheet online (https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AtIJScFz1sS7dEtDbnpacjFFTDZCZ2NwMW1zQzBxaVE&hl=en).
Great work so far!
It does seem to have trouble recognizing what the deck actually is in terms of main-quanta and mark-quanta:
I constantly get different arrangements for duos and trios ... sometimes the actual mark is right in front, sometimes
in the back, sometimes a third "mark" is displayed which plays absolutely no part in the deck. Then, sometimes
mark quanta (for the actual mark) are calculated as 5 and sometimes not.
Post by: YoungSot on April 13, 2011, 03:28:44 pm
Please do start your own thread for this ... otherwise it will be lost instantly.Yeah, you should do this when you get a chance. It seems to me that it's come along far enough to be a useful tool, and making it more visible means better feedback and more suggestions for improvement.
Post by: UTAlan on April 14, 2011, 02:33:35 pm
This is a tool I built based on this thread by SG (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,5676). It is currently a work in progress, so please bear with me as I work out the kinks. I appreciate any and all feedback anybody can provide in order to help improve the tool. Please keep in mind that QI is used as a guide in deck-building. While a QI of 5.0 appears to be ideal in many cases, this does not guarantee your deck will have the ideal amount of quanta every match. I hope it can assist you in your deck-building, but don't rely on it to do all the work for you. ;)
The Formula
QI | = | Deck Cost (Deck Quanta Generation / 5) |
Assumptions:
- 30 card deck
- A pillar, on average, generates 5 quanta a game
- A Mark behaves identically to a pillar
- There is not currently enough evidence to determine what the ideal QI is in a rainbow deck. (ANYONE?)
- QI is calculated independently for each element in use in your deck.
- The observed ideal QI for a deck is 5.0
- QI of greater than 5 is not producing enough quanta, while QI of less than 5 is producing too much quanta.
- Cost
- Quanta Generation
Each card's cost is a sum of two values:
- The cost to play the card. This will always be a value of 0 or greater.
- The cost to play the card's special ability. This will always be a value of 0 or greater.
This is a value representing the average quanta generated in a game by the card.
Pillar
Cost: 0
Quanta Generation: 5 (of respective element)
Tower
Cost: 0
Quanta Generation: 6 (of respective element)
Nova
Cost: 0
Quanta Generation: 1 (for each element)
Supernova
Cost: 2 (Entropy)
Quanta Generation: 2 (for each element)
Immolation
Cost: 0
Quanta Generation: 7 (Fire), 1 (for each non-Fire element)
Cremation
Cost: 0
Quanta Generation: 9 (Fire), 1 (for each non-Fire element)
Devourer
Cost: 2 (Darkness), 1 (Earth)
Quanta Generation: 5 (Darkness)
Example Deck
Code: [Select]
61o 61o 61o 61o 61o 61o 61o 61o 61o 61o 61o 61o 61o 61o 61o 61s 61s 61s 61s 61s 61t 61t 61t 61t 61t 61t 61v 61v 61v 61vThis is The Essential Halfblood Farmer. To calculate the QI, we start by adding up to total cost of all cards in the deck.
Cost = (0 * 15) [Pillars] + (6 * 5) [Immortals] + (6 * 6) [Dim Shields] + (13 * 4) [Dragons] = 118
We then add up the total Quanta Generation of all the cards in the deck.
Quanta Generation = (5 * 15) [Pillars] + (0 * 5) [Immortals] + (0 * 6) [Dim Shields] + (0 * 4) [Dragons] + (5) [Mark] = 80
Throw these values into our formula and you get: 118 / (80 / 5) = 118 / 16 = 7.375
This deck is not producing enough quanta to fuel the deck, according to its QI. You can observe this while playing the deck by seeing that you are usually unable to play all the cards in your hand due to not having enough quanta.
- OTHER cards, such as SoG, have their cost divided up evenly over however many elements in which your deck is generating quanta. For example, in a duo deck with SoGs, the cost of SoG is (3/2) for both of those elements.
- If you have cards in your deck that generate unused quanta, the tool will show 0 cost, X quanta generation. The same goes for cards with costs from elements that are not generating any quanta. If you are okay with not using the extra quanta, or don't need to spend the quanta for that particular card (special ability?), you can ignore these results. Cards like Nova and Immolation will inevitably show every element.
- I documented all cards and their costs/quanta generation in a Google Spreadsheet (https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AtIJScFz1sS7dEtDbnpacjFFTDZCZ2NwMW1zQzBxaVE&hl=en) for those who are interested.
Post by: UTAlan on April 14, 2011, 02:35:46 pm
Good idea. (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,24433.msg333599.html) :)Please do start your own thread for this ... otherwise it will be lost instantly.Yeah, you should do this when you get a chance. It seems to me that it's come along far enough to be a useful tool, and making it more visible means better feedback and more suggestions for improvement.
Post by: BluePriest on April 14, 2011, 02:45:55 pm
Now even though its only GOOD for rushes, that doesnt mean that it isnt helpful for stalls. It gives a good starting place for any deck, thats for sure. Then it should be tweaked accordingly based on play experience. Perhaps ratcharmers stall rating study would improve QI
Good Work Nonetheless
Post by: Jangoo on April 14, 2011, 03:02:44 pm
Good idea. (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,24433.msg333599.html) :)
Quote
An Error Has Occurred!Huh ??? ?
The topic or board you are looking for appears to be either missing or off limits to you.
Also, make sure you sign up for THIS (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,24362.msg333609.html#new) once it gets going. ;)
Post by: Scaredgirl on April 14, 2011, 03:08:35 pm
Also, to make a tool an "official" tool that will be advertised on these forums, there are certain steps that must done. I will PM you about it. That system is to prevent a situation where people take ideas from the forum, start their own websites where we have zero control, and the data is later lost if the person decides to quit. In other words, tools should be basically partly owned by the community if it's the community that helps build them.
I wrote a longer post about this somewhere. I'll try to dig it up.
Post by: UTAlan on April 14, 2011, 03:16:25 pm
I merged the two topics. No need to have discussion about the same thing in two separate places.No problem at all. Sorry if I broke protocol or whatever. I'll gladly jump through whatever hoops are necessary, and have no problems making my code publicly available. :)
Also, to make a tool an "official" tool that will be advertised on these forums, there are certain steps that must done. I will PM you about it. That system is to prevent a situation where people take ideas from the forum, start their own websites where we have zero control, and the data is later lost if the person decides to quit. In other words, tools should be basically partly owned by the community if it's the community that helps build them.
I wrote a longer post about this somewhere. I'll try to dig it up.
Post by: vidurkhanna on April 20, 2011, 08:12:16 am
Post by: omegareaper7 on April 20, 2011, 08:25:50 am
Post by: Jangoo on April 20, 2011, 09:11:42 am
for rushes, lower is better, for stalls, higher can work.Lower or higher than the "optimal" QI 5 that is.
Post by: alka on April 20, 2011, 12:25:30 pm
Post by: silux on April 20, 2011, 10:27:33 pm
In rushes easiest way to balance is taking 5 and then add or subtract pillars every 5 tests.
In stall decks you have to put 2 pillar for every ability that cost 1 to use his ability always.
I've written an article about quanta index in the wiki ;)
Post by: 10 men on April 22, 2011, 06:32:10 pm
- Immo/Crema is a spell that cost -7/-9 :fire and -1 of every other Element. Similarly, Nova costs -1 of every Element.
- A creature that you have in your opening draw that produces quanta every turn is a pillar. The pillar costs the casting cost of that creature plus the number of turns it take to play him in quanta that creature generates.
- A card with an ability that you will use every turn can be treated as a creature that generates -X quanta every turn where X is the cost of that ability.
(All the statements above are true without the context of QI)
- You can calculate QI also by drawing your whole deck and counting the turns it takes to play everything.
- QI isn't a super-useful concept imo. :P
Post by: UTAlan on April 22, 2011, 09:15:41 pm
I'd like to point out a few things:In terms of QI, negative cost is not beneficial. That was the idea I started with while making my tool, but eventually realized that produces inconsistent results. It's more effective to think of it in terms of Cost (quanta spent) vs. Quanta Generation (quanta produced). Immo/Crema costs 0 and generated 7/9 :fire and 1 of every other element. Devourer costs 2 and has a quanta generation of 5 (on average, it will produce 5 quanta per game - the same as a pillar). Put cost over quanta gen and you get a ratio that should be approaching 1 (meaning you are producing the same amount of quanta you will be spending). I divided the quanta generation by 5 to be consistent with the initial QI theory, so the target is 5.0, not 1.0.
- Immo/Crema is a spell that cost -7/-9 :fire and -1 of every other Element. Similarly, Nova costs -1 of every Element.
- A creature that you have in your opening draw that produces quanta every turn is a pillar. The pillar costs the casting cost of that creature plus the number of turns it take to play him in quanta that creature generates.
- A card with an ability that you will use every turn can be treated as a creature that generates -X quanta every turn where X is the cost of that ability.
(All the statements above are true without the context of QI)
- You can calculate QI also by drawing your whole deck and counting the turns it takes to play everything.
- QI isn't a super-useful concept imo. :P
Post by: tdog0001 on April 23, 2011, 04:41:33 am
So the main problem it doesn't take into account that stalls take longer to gain the quanta needed in the deck. But, to counteract this, pillars produce even more quanta on average in a stall. So why not boost the pillar:quanta production ratio from 1:5, to say, 8-9(Number is up for debate). This makes it so the lower amount of pillars is reimbursed with longer quanta generation, because it's silly to assume that the pillars are gonna stop producing quanta in 5 turns. Depending on how long your stall is, the longer those pillars are going to produce. For example, Aether is notorious for having a high QI due to their imbalance in the beginning of a game. But since it's a stall, it will, hopefully, have Dimensional Shields to start stalling with. It only needs 6 quanta to start, and usually those Aether pillars produce enough quanta to finish with Dragons/TUs/etc. mid to late game. It's because those pillars produce more than 5 quanta in a game on average! As I said, a good baseline for stalls is really depending on how the stall works. For example, if it is pretty fast for a stall, the QI base should be barely increased, while a stall that drags out (I'm looking at you, Phase Shield/Lance FG deck) would have a much higher base.
As for auxiliary quanta production cards, here's my opinion on each:
Immolation/Cremation: Since they're mainly used in rushes, I'll assume that the QI base is 5. Since they produce 7/9 respectively, they should equivocate to 1.4/1.8 for fire, meaning that's how many pillars they are equal too. So a deck with six of them would be the equivalent to 8.4/10.8 pillars, which makes sense, since 8.4/10.8 * 6 equals 42/64.8 fire quanta, which is enough for a rush. And to the nova side effect, 0.2 to each separate QI. So let's say we have 6 Immos and 4 novas, we'd have an equivalent of 2 pillars (10 nova-like cards *0.2), which sounds right considering Immo rushes aren't heavy in the other quanta pools. So an important lesson here is 1 quanta is equivalent to a fifth of a pillar. I came with this equation simply by reducing the above ratio 5:1 to 1:0.2 .
Nova: read above midway for detailed explanation. 0.2 to each Quanta pool's QI base, basicly.
Super Nova: read above, except double the amount to give to each pool(0.4 for the lazy people).
Creature Generators: As 10 men said, treat them like pillars, and subtract their costs from their total quanta production (For example, Brimstone Eater would be a 4 since 5(The current QI base, can be changed) - 1(cost) = 4) and then find the correct ratio for the new found total quanta production (In Brimstone's case, he would be the equivalent of 0.8 pillars (5:1 to 4:0.8) In the case of devourer, if you plan to use his Burrow ability, subtract his primary darkness cost from his total production (In this case, 3 is the result), then treat the one time earth cost as a 1 cost card when configuring your Earth QI.
For recurring costs like upkeeps or growth: Treat the cost as -(x/y) where X is the recurring cost and Y is the QI base you have (In most cases, 5). So for example, Lava Destroyer's recurring cost is 1 earth quanta. So you divide 1 by 5 and arrive at 0.2 and then make it negative. So after you count up your Earth Pool Pillar amount, you subtract 0.2 from it.
I guess that's it... correct/ask for clarification/comment/whatever on this if you have any trouble grasping this, as my method of explaining things is usually underpar.
If you didn't understand terms I used in the explanations, here they are:
QI base: The baseline amount of turns your pillars are going to produce quanta. It's what you multiply your number of pillars by and divide by your total amount of quanta consumption (In most cases, 5). I refer to it as a variable because of the first point I try to get through, was that it can change depending on your deck type. Should've used a more clear term than that, lol.
Total Quanta Production: QI Base * Pillar amount. How much total your pillars will produce on average in a game.
Total Quanta Consumption: Total of all your card costs in your deck. This is used to be divided by the Total Quanta Production to see how close the total is to 1.
So yeah, I figure there's a few flaws in this, so please, go ahead and point them out.
man that was long
Post by: Five In One on April 23, 2011, 09:49:01 pm
Where do towers fit into the equation? They still give quantums, but you also gain one when you play them.
Post by: tdog0001 on April 23, 2011, 09:53:56 pm
So if you have ten towers, for example, it's simply:
10 * 5(base) + 10 (Number of towers); in which case is 60.
It's interesting to note that 10 Towers is the same as 12 pillars, or 5:6.
Post by: Five In One on April 23, 2011, 09:59:52 pm
Then there's upgraded pendulums...
Post by: tdog0001 on April 23, 2011, 10:21:21 pm
And for upgraded, just add 0.5 to the pendulum's original element.
Example: We have an upped/unupped Earth pendulum, an air mark, and a base of 5.
We divide 5/2 and get 2.5, round it up to 3 for earth, and down to 2 for air. Then, for upped, we add 1 to earth making it 4. So an upped pendulum produces the same off element amount, while it produces one more for upped on element. Sounds, right, right?
here's an example that uses upped pendulums and towers. We have 10 Darkness Towers and 5 Light Pendulums (all upped) with a Darkness mark. So let's calculate the towers. We do the following:
(number of towers) * (base) + (number of towers) In this case:
10 * 5 + 10 = 60
So our total Quanta Production is 60 from towers.
Now the light pendulums:
(Base) \ 2
5 \ 2 = 2.5 ; Then we round up to three for light, and down 2 two for darkness. Then we add 1 to light for the upgraded bonus, making 4. Since we have 5 pendulums, we multiply both Light and darkness' production from the pendulum by 5, thus making 20 for light and 10 for darkness.
Add the darkness part to the towers Quanta Production and we get 70. So our final results are:
70 :darkness and 20 :light
Ready to be divided into the total quanta consumption.
Post by: silux on April 27, 2011, 02:27:00 pm
Here a guide for stall decks
Post by: UTAlan on June 09, 2011, 07:44:54 pm
Post by: ddevans96 on June 09, 2011, 08:23:45 pm
I simplified my QI Tool (http://www.quantum-index.com/), cleaning up the code a bit and giving it a cleaner UI. Hopefully this is closer to what would go in the Elements Resources page when the time comes for that. Also added a deck image option.+bookmark. I've been hoping something like would be made for a long time. Props to you.
How does it factor in things like producing creatures, pests, immolation, nova/supernova, soul catchers, luciferin, pendulums, and upgrades? (Sorry if this is a lot of questions - I'm just really curious :) )
Post by: UTAlan on June 09, 2011, 08:37:54 pm
How does it factor in things like producing creatures, pests, immolation, nova/supernova, soul catchers, luciferin, pendulums, and upgrades?QI is COST / # PILLARS, with the assumption that a pillar generates 5 quanta (on average) per game. I modified the formula a bit to account for these other cards, doing COST / GENERATION, which is broken down by element. For example:
* Aether Pillar: 0 cost/5 :aether generation
* Aether Tower: 0 cost/6 :aether generation
* Aether Pendulum (nonupped): 0 cost/2.5 :aether generation/2.5 Mark generation
* Aether Pendulum (upped): 0 cost/3.5 :aether generation/2.5 Mark generation
* Devourer: 2 :darkness cost/1 :earth cost/5 :darkness generation
* Cremation: 0 cost/9 :fire generation/1 generation for all other elements
* Nova: 0 cost/1 generation for all elements
* Supernova: 2 :entropy cost/2 generation for all elements
(In the end, I actually do COST / (GENERATION / 5) to keep the formula consistent with the generally accepted QI values, but the result is the same.)
Post by: ddevans96 on June 09, 2011, 08:47:48 pm
Do you have any formulas for Soul Catcher/Luciferin? Those should like they would be the most difficult.
Post by: UTAlan on June 09, 2011, 09:09:44 pm
Ideally, I'd pick an average value of expected quanta generated per game for each of these cards. While it wouldn't be perfect, neither is pillar generation. I'm open to suggestions for average generated quanta per game for these cards.
Post by: YoungSot on June 09, 2011, 09:23:41 pm
Right now? I'm not handling them well. Soul Catcher has 2 :death/3 :death generation (depending on upgrade), while Luciferin has 0. :/Is it feasible for the quanta generation of one card to be calculated based on other cards in the deck? For example, you might base the light quanta generation of luciferin off of the number of ability-less creatures in the deck.
Ideally, I'd pick an average value of expected quanta generated per game for each of these cards. While it wouldn't be perfect, neither is pillar generation. I'm open to suggestions for average generated quanta per game for these cards.
Post by: Essence on June 09, 2011, 09:30:57 pm
Random musing on QI theory.
You want 1 pillar per 5CC of casting cost.
There are 12 elements. Quantum Pillars produce 3 random quanta. On average, then, 25% of elements get a quanta per turn -- or, statistically, each element gets .25 of a quanta per turn. Therefore, with 4 Quantum Pillars, you get the same net effect as though you had 1 pillar of each kind -- statistically.
So, in order to find the right number of pillars in a half-rainbow deck, you need to find the one sub-element that has the highest total CC, divide that by 5, multiply that by 4, and then add that many Quantum Pillars. Then, with your main element, subtract 1/4 of your Quantum Pillars from the total number of on-element Pillars you put in.
So, for example, if you have a half-Light deck with 46 total CC in Light, and the other half is rainbow with the highest CC being a Toadfish (5), you need
5/5=1x4=4 Quantum Pillars, and
46/5=9-(4/4=1)=8(-1 for a Light Mark)=7 Light Pillars. Total of 13 pillars, 4 Quantum and 7 Light.
No idea how to take Novas into account; I usually just swap them out 1-for-1 with QPs. :)
Post by: UTAlan on June 09, 2011, 09:36:56 pm
Is it feasible for the quanta generation of one card to be calculated based on other cards in the deck? For example, you might base the light quanta generation of luciferin off of the number of ability-less creatures in the deck.Possible? Yes. Easy? No. I'm currently processing the cards one at a time, in the order they appear in the deck code. This requires a second pass, as it would need knowledge of all cards in the deck, not just the ones it has already processed. I'll think over how I could implement it, though. Once I know how many ability-less creatures in a deck, what would be the estimate of quanta generation? One per ability-less creature? Two? Five?
Post by: Onizuka on June 09, 2011, 11:02:55 pm
I'd probably rate each non ability creature as like 2~4 light quanta.
Post by: silux on June 10, 2011, 01:14:51 pm
you use that (http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/4570/deathgrinder.jpg)
To get a useful amount of pillars:
- find a nice combo-sinergy;fill in one pillar for every 3-5 cards
- test 3-5 times the deck in the trainer
- add or take away pillars and return to point 1
Post by: UTAlan on June 10, 2011, 01:56:58 pm
That number would have include any creature with dejavu as its ability as well.Good point.
Quote
I'd probably rate each non ability creature as like 2~4 light quanta.That seems a bit much to me. In reality, you are unlikely to have every ability-less creature in the field of play when you play luciferin. I was thinking 1 light quanta per. This should balance out the creatures that aren't played versus the ones that generate more than 1 :light quanta in a game.
Post by: tyranim on June 25, 2011, 07:06:27 am
and pends
Post by: Chromatophore on June 25, 2011, 02:07:39 pm
i dont know if this has been answered yet or not, but what about towers? how would one change the formula to include the quanta produced when a tower is played?
and pends
Not sure if everyone uses the same method but this is more or less what i useHow does it factor in things like producing creatures, pests, immolation, nova/supernova, soul catchers, luciferin, pendulums, and upgrades?QI is COST / # PILLARS, with the assumption that a pillar generates 5 quanta (on average) per game. I modified the formula a bit to account for these other cards, doing COST / GENERATION, which is broken down by element. For example:
* Aether Pillar: 0 cost/5 :aether generation
* Aether Tower: 0 cost/6 :aether generation
* Aether Pendulum (nonupped): 0 cost/2.5 :aether generation/2.5 Mark generation
* Aether Pendulum (upped): 0 cost/3.5 :aether generation/2.5 Mark generation
* Devourer: 2 :darkness cost/1 :earth cost/5 :darkness generation
* Cremation: 0 cost/9 :fire generation/1 generation for all other elements
* Nova: 0 cost/1 generation for all elements
* Supernova: 2 :entropy cost/2 generation for all elements
(In the end, I actually do COST / (GENERATION / 5) to keep the formula consistent with the generally accepted QI values, but the result is the same.)
Post by: Xenocidius on July 11, 2011, 09:24:56 am
I think quanta-producing creatures should each be counted as a pillar, but that their casting cost is still added to the total cost of the deck. Applying this to the Darkness deck:
Total amount of quanta used to pay for cards: 10*6 (dragon) + 2*6 (devourer) + 4*3 (steal) + 4*3 (drain life) = 96.
Total number of pillars in deck: 12 pillars + 6 Devourers = 18.
So, the QI would be 5.33, a much more realistic indication of the deck's quanta balance.
Now, by analogy, towers can be calculated. They are effectively pillars with a casting cost of -1. So, if that darkness deck had all pillars upgraded, then:
Total amount of quanta used to pay for cards: 96 + (-1*12) = 84.
Total number of pillars in deck: 12 pillars + 6 Devourers = 18.
So, the QI would be 4.66, which means there's room for some of those dragons to be upgraded as well.
Marks are another issue - I'd count them as two pillars. Seeing as they are usually splashed to power 6-12 quanta, which would give a QI of 3-6, this seems about right. It would lower the QIs for each of the decks in the OP, and would also lower the average, "standard" QI. Applying this to the above darkness decks gives 4.8 for the pillars version and 4.2 for the towers version. Considering that previously their average was 5, the "standard" QI, the new "standard" QI should be the average of 4.8 and 4.2, i.e., 4.5.
Alright, moving on to abilities. Using the classic example of Inundation, it uses 1 quanta each turn. It effectively negates one pillar. So perhaps you should take one pillar from the total number of pillars in deck count (no need to compensate for multiple Inundations, as you'll only play one at a time)? Note that this also applies for abilities that you will use each turn no matter what.
Of course, the flaw here is that Inundation is situational (you won't always play it). This also applies for cards which you won't always play (like Steal). In fact, maybe their costs should be halved for the purposes of QI? QI is a fairly crude concept, so it probably doesn't matter too much, but if we wanted to really get technical about this, it could be an option.
So, to summarize in a formula, we have:
QI | = | Anything that affects the quanta pool just once Anything that affects the quanta pool each turn |
As for decks with more than one element, the only reasonable solution seems to be to calculate their QIs separately. Here's how it works:
- Pendulums count as half a pillar for each element they generate for
- Upped pendulums are like normal pendulums, but with a casting cost of -1 for the element they belong to
- Quantum Pillars count as a quarter of a pillar for each element
- Quantum Towers are like Quantum Pillars, but with a casting cost of -0.25 for each element
- Other cards cost q/x for each element, where q is their cost in :rainbow, and x is the number of elements for which quanta are being generated
Applying the above principles to a simple Darkness/Earth denial deck:
Code: [Select]
593 593 593 593 593 593 5um 5um 5um 5um 5um 5um 5uv 5uv 5uv 5uv 5uv 5uv 606 606 606 606 606 606 606 606 606 606 606 606Total cost of cards and abilities in Darkness: 2*6 (Devourers) + 5*6 (Gargoyles) = 42Total "pillars": 12/2 (pendulums) + 6 (Devourers) = 12
:darkness QI: 3.5
So there's a fair bit of :darkness quanta going around, and could be optimized further.
Total cost of cards and abilities in Earth: 3*6 (Earthquakes) + 12 (abilities) = 30
Total "pillars": 12/2 (pendulums) + 2 (Mark) = 8
:earth QI: 3.75
So there's also a fair bit of :earth quanta going around, and overall the number of pendulums could be decreased.
So that's my two cents on using QI for duos and trios. The only thing that's left is making it work for rainbows.
Edit: The QI program (http://www.quantum-index.com/) seems to take some of these things into account. Sorry if my ideas are repeats of what other people have come up with.
Post by: Blues on July 12, 2011, 03:27:43 pm
That's confusing.
When an ability happens automatically each turn, why count the card with this ability twice?
Post by: Xenocidius on July 13, 2011, 01:35:33 am
"- if the ability happens automatically each turn (for example Devourer) it gets counted twice"Only the ability cost is counted twice (Devourer's ability "cost" is -1, Flooding's ability cost is 1, etc.). As I've said above, I prefer to put them in the pillar count.
That's confusing.
When an ability happens automatically each turn, why count the card with this ability twice?
Post by: Camoninja on July 13, 2011, 01:38:26 am
Post by: Camoninja on July 28, 2011, 05:37:25 pm
Post by: ninjaclone09 on August 02, 2011, 02:06:55 am
I don't really get how this QI thing works much, but I'm pretty sure that the QI isn't 5.
First of all, due to this quote:
QI REPORT
Deck information:
Cards = 30
Total Cost of Cards = 72
Total Cost of abilities = 12
Number of Pillars = 11
QI
Your QI is 7.315 which is means you have too few pillars.
Fix:
Remove 2 copies of Golden Dragon.
Take 2 copies of Light Pillar.
This will change your QI to 5.152.
Assuming this calculation is correct, you calculate the QI by doing this:
Add the total cost of the cards and the total ability costs, then subtract it by the number of pillars and put a decimal after the first number
72 + 12 = 74 - 11 = 73 then put a decimal and its 7.3. And somethnig that has to do with the number of cards changes it to 7.315. not a big difference.
So lets get back to the death grinder.
Cost of all of the cards:
6 Bone dragons - 10 quanta each - 60 quanta
6 Poisons - 1 quanta each - 6 quanta
3 Plagues - 4 quanta each - 12 quanta
No ability costs. Add up the cost of all the cards:
60 + 6 = 66
66 + 12 = 78
Subtract it by the number of pillars
78 - 15 = 63.
Put in the decimal
63 --- 6.3
Add .015(since there are 30 cards)
Final answer - 6.315
So the QI is 6.315, not 5. I'm probably wrong, and if I am, please help me :) thanks
Post by: willng3 on August 02, 2011, 02:22:13 am
For the Death grinder:
(Bone Dragon = 10 :death) x 6 = 60
(Poison = 1 :death) x 6 = 6
(Plague = 4 :death) x 3 = 12
Total of card costs: 60 + 6 + 12 = 78 :death.
There are no abilities so that part can be ignored. So your math up until this portion is fine. But you're doing a few things incorrectly after this point. Firstly, you do not subtract the number of pillars from the total cost of cards + abilities. You divide the total cost of cards + abilities by the number of pillars in your deck. There is also nothing about simply moving the decimal here.
So since you have 15 Pillars here you now proceed with 78/15 = 5.2 ~ 5
So while it's not exactly 5, it's pretty darn close.
Post by: pikachufan2164 on August 02, 2011, 02:33:02 am
Bone Dragon (6×10 :death = 60)
Poison (6×1 :death = 6)
Plague (4×3 :death = 12)
Total: 60+6+12 = 78 :death
Assuming mark is Death,
Pillars (15)
Mark (1)
Total: 15+1=16
QI = 78/16 = 4.875
Post by: willng3 on August 02, 2011, 02:36:42 am
Post by: davidy22 on August 02, 2011, 04:15:01 am
For decks with costs and gains that can vary wildly - dissipation shield, rewound skeletons - how would QI be calculated?
I would be willing to write the framework for the QI calculator. I'll also write it to look up a bunch of files with the card data in plain-text XML, as I really don't relish the idea of typing in the individual costs of every card in the game. Someone else would have to type the costs and quanta production of every card themselves after I'm finished, but it would also mean I could
Post by: ninjaclone09 on August 02, 2011, 06:59:37 am
SAMPLE DECK:
20x aether pillar
2x parallel universe
4x dimensional shield
4x silence
5x turqoise nymph
Cost:
2x parallel universe = 14 quanta
4x dimensional shield = 24 quanta
4x silence = 12 quanta
5x turqoise nymph = 40 quanta
14 + 24 = 38
12 + 40 = 52
52 + 38 = 90
Ability Cost:
5x turqoise nymph ability; immortality:
90 + 15 = 105
105 divided by 20 = 5.25
QI = 5.25
:D
Post by: 10 men on August 04, 2011, 11:21:37 am
We're playing a redux version of Elements, normal rules but simplified a bit: There is no maximum deck size, no maximum number of cards you can have in a deck (i.e. you can play any number of non-pillar cards too), no maximum HP (you still start with 100 of course, but if you heal 20 you will go to 120), and no maximum amount of permanents and creatures that can be on the field. Other than that all rules are the same. Ok?
Ok. First question: What's the correct pillar ratio for an unupgraded Anubis deck. The only cards that are allowed are Time Factories and Anubis (but any number of either).
Second question: You know the following about your opponent: He will play an arbitrarily large deck (deckout is not an option) of 80% Shards of Gratitude and 20% Quantum Towers. What's the best build now?
Have fun thinking about it! ;)
Post by: EmeraldTiger on August 04, 2011, 02:52:46 pm
Post by: UTAlan on August 04, 2011, 03:16:24 pm
who made this tool? http://www.quantum-index.com/qi.php<--
Post by: EmeraldTiger on August 04, 2011, 03:28:30 pm
Post by: Pineapple on August 04, 2011, 03:35:11 pm
I have a thought experiment for QI enthusiasts:1. According to 5QI, any totalcost / totalpillar = 5.
We're playing a redux version of Elements, normal rules but simplified a bit: There is no maximum deck size, no maximum number of cards you can have in a deck (i.e. you can play any number of non-pillar cards too), no maximum HP (you still start with 100 of course, but if you heal 20 you will go to 120), and no maximum amount of permanents and creatures that can be on the field. Other than that all rules are the same. Ok?
Ok. First question: What's the correct pillar ratio for an unupgraded Anubis deck. The only cards that are allowed are Time Factories and Anubis (but any number of either).
Second question: You know the following about your opponent: He will play an arbitrarily large deck (deckout is not an option) of 80% Shards of Gratitude and 20% Quantum Towers. What's the best build now?
Have fun thinking about it! ;)
T = number of towers, A = number of anubes.
(8A-T)/T = 5
8A - T = 5T
8T = 6T
A/T = 6/8 = 3/4
Therefore, according to 5QI, it would either be 13 Anubes to 17 Towers (least amount of cards) or 15 Anubes and 20 Towers (perfect ratio). If the 30 card rule wasn't in place, it would be as many cards as needed to kill the opponent before decking out. This is because, although according to QI, any deck with a 3 to 4 ratio would be equally efficient, we all know that QI doesn't take drawing 1 card per turn into account. The only way to make good use of good QI is to have the perfect draw; too many creatures and you won't have enough quanta, too many pillars and you'll have less than satisfactory damage. Doubling the deck would only increase the chances of you not getting a perfect draw.
2. To maximize your win chance against the deck, you know that it has an average of drawing 4 SoGs every 5 turns, which means that you have to play 4 anubes every 5 turns to match the damage. Therefore, you can only use the smallest deck (since increasing to the Anubis to Tower ratio to 4:5 won't increase the Anubes you play, only the ones stuck in your hand) and hope that it has Tower-heavy draws while you have perfect draws.
--
P.S. Don't kill me for butchering the plural form of "Anubis", whatever it is.
Post by: 10 men on August 05, 2011, 11:31:41 am
2. To maximize your win chance against the deck, you know that it has an average of drawing 4 SoGs every 5 turns, which means that you have to play 4 anubes every 5 turns to match the damage. Therefore, you can only use the smallest deck (since increasing to the Anubis to Tower ratio to 4:5 won't increase the Anubes you play, only the ones stuck in your hand) and hope that it has Tower-heavy draws while you have perfect draws.Hehe. You can actually make a deck that has 100% winrate against it. (You're reasoning is good but you've made one mistake.)
Post by: Xinef on August 05, 2011, 02:00:07 pm
I wrote a simple script (in a programming language called Scala) that calculated how many turns it takes (depending on your pillar to anubis ratio) to kill an opponent with 100 HP who does nothing, but waits for his demise :P
It's a bit heuristic, since I replaced probability with fractions (eg. instead of 1/2 probability of drawing a pillar, I assume I draw a half of a pillar and a half of an anubis). Obviously this means that the results aren't optimal, but still close enough to be useful.
So, here is the result:
Code: [Select]
Pillars per 100 cards: turns:
1 22
2 20
3 19
4 18
5 17
6 17
7 16
8 16
9 16
10 15
11 15
12 14
13 14
14 14
15 13
16 13
17 13
18 13
19 12
20 12
21 12
22 12
23 12
24 11
25 11
26 11
27 11
28 11
29 11
30 11
31 11
32 11
33 11
34 10
35 10
36 10
37 10
38 10
39 10
40 10
41 10
42 10
43 10
44 9
45 9
46 9
47 9
48 9
49 9
50 9
51 9
52 9
53 9
54 9
55 9
56 9
57 8
58 8
59 8
60 8
61 8
62 8
63 9
64 9
65 9
66 9
67 9
68 9
69 9
70 9
71 9
72 9
73 10
74 10
75 10
76 11
77 11
78 11
79 11
80 11
81 12
82 12
83 13
84 14
85 14
86 15
87 15
88 16
89 17
90 18
91 20
92 22
93 25
94 28
95 33
96 38
97 46
98 63
99 113And the script if anyone is interested:Code: [Select]
var pillarRatio = 0.0d
println("Pillars per 100 cards: \t turns:")
for(i <- 1 to 100) {
pillarRatio += 0.01d
var anubisRatio = 1.0d - pillarRatio
var timeQuanta = 0.0d
var damage = 0.0d
var anubisInHand = 0.0d
var pillarInHand = 0.0d
var anubisCount = 0.0d
var pillarCount = 0.0d
var turnCount = 0
while(damage < 100.0d) {
// turn start - draw cards
turnCount += 1
if(turnCount == 1) {
// first turn, assume an average of 7.5 cards drawn
pillarInHand += 7.5d * pillarRatio
anubisInHand += 7.5d * anubisRatio
}
else {
// non-first turn
pillarInHand += pillarRatio
anubisInHand += anubisRatio
}
// main phase - play pillars and anubises if possible
pillarCount += pillarInHand
pillarInHand = 0.0d
while(timeQuanta >= 8.0d && anubisInHand >= 1.0d) {
timeQuanta -= 8.0d
anubisCount += 1.0d
anubisInHand -= 1.0d
}
// turn end - discard, deal damage, gain quanta
if(anubisInHand > 7.0d) {
anubisInHand = 7.0d
}
damage += 5 * anubisCount
timeQuanta += 1 + pillarCount
}
var ratio = (100.0d * pillarRatio + 0.5d).toInt
println("\t" + ratio + "\t\t" + turnCount)
}For example, with only 1 pillar per 100 cards, you can still win in only 22 turns, because you can play your first anubis on turn 9 (thanks to your Time mark) and second one on turn 17... on the other hand, with too many pillars and too few anubises you need much more Time on average to draw that anubis.Anyway, it seems that the best ratio is somewhere around 0.6 pillars and 0.4 anubises, which means a deck consisting of 18 time pillars and 12 anubises can theoretically win on average in 8 turns.
The QI of this deck is ~5.33 (or ~5.05 if you count your mark as a pillar), which seems to make sense for a slow rush.
Of course, if we fight a real opponent, we might want an aether mark in case he has some CC. The results are similar, with much worse performance in case of very few pillars, and approximately 1 more turn needed to win in case of good pillar ratios.
Code: [Select]
Pillars per 100 cards: turns:
1 52
2 39
3 33
4 29
5 26
6 24
7 23
8 21
9 21
10 19
11 19
12 18
13 18
14 17
15 16
16 16
17 15
18 15
19 15
20 14
21 14
22 14
23 14
24 13
25 13
26 13
27 13
28 12
29 12
30 12
31 12
32 12
33 12
34 11
35 11
36 11
37 11
38 11
39 11
40 11
41 11
42 11
43 11
44 10
45 10
46 10
47 10
48 10
49 10
50 10
51 10
52 10
53 10
54 9
55 9
56 9
57 9
58 9
59 9
60 9
61 9
62 9
63 9
64 9
65 9
66 9
67 9
68 9
69 9
70 9
71 9
72 9
73 10
74 10
75 10
76 11
77 11
78 11
79 11
80 11
81 12
82 12
83 13
84 14
85 14
86 15
87 15
88 16
89 17
90 18
91 20
92 22
93 25
94 28
95 33
96 38
97 46
98 63
99 113The perfect ratio is probably somewhere in the middle of 9's so I'd take 0.63.So, with an aether mark you should take 19 time factories and 11 anubises, which gives a QI of ~4,63
The questions remaining are, if we should make any alterations because real opponents usually don't wait doing nothing. :P
And whether my heuristic is good enough and reliable.
2. Theoretically, you need to draw anubises more often than your opponent draws SoGs, so for example if you have 85 anubises and 15 pillars and your opponent has 80 SoGs and 20 pillars, you'll be able to deal more damage than your opponent heals. The problem is, you'll need to draw your first 7 pillars to be able to play one anubis per turn (obviously a Time mark), and one more to slowly play the anubises remaining in your hand.
By the time you draw that many pillars, your opponent will already have a huge advantage in HP, so I suspect a game much longer than 100 turns... and thus much larger decks are needed. Let's see if I can alter my script to simulate a similar situation...
And... here are the results:
Code: [Select]
Pillars per 100 cards: turns:
1 3795
2 1944
3 1331
4 1029
5 851
6 733
7 656
8 601
9 562
10 538
11 522
12 516
13 523
14 542
15 578
16 646
17 767
18 1032
19 1859
So, I'd take 120 time factories and 880 anubises, just to stay on the safe side, but probably a deck of 600 cards should suffice :P
Post by: LaFlibuste on August 05, 2011, 03:14:45 pm
If answers for these have already been found, it'd be nice if it could be included in the first post, or at least place a link redirecting to the post/page where this is answered. Sorry for being lazy :P
In any event, I may eventually try to find a solution for these. My first thoughts on this is:
1) 2-3 color decks count colors separately;
2) Pendulums count for 1/2 of a pillar towards each color;
3) Towers should possibly counted like normal pillars, because they "only" give a bonus on the first turn. If you must, count them for 1.1 pillar? 1.2?
4) Quantum pillars/Towers I am not sure about, but I would either guess that: a) Rainbow decks with quantum pillars/towers have a higher ideal QI (6, perhaps?) or b) Quantum pillars in a rainbow are valued a bit more than regular pillars in a mono, something like 1.5-2 (counting them as 3 normal pillars seems wrong to me on account of them being random and a bit less reliable) (also, obviously quantum pillars in a mono/duo/trio should be valued less; maybe 0.8?). For Quantum towers, apply the same logic as other towers: give them a 0.x bonus?
5) Novas in a rainbow, are they worth 1 pillar? 2? 4 (the amount of turns it takes a pillar to generate as much quanta)? And Supernovas are worth double that amount? They both generate a lot of quanta instantly, which is very useful to get a jump start, but it doesn't generate qanta turn after turn, like a normal pillar does. In an 8 turns game, a quantum pillar generates 27 quanta, whereas a nova still only generates 12...
6) Is it customary to count the mark as a pillar? IIRC, it hasn't been mentionned in the first post. And how do you count the mark in a rainbow? Ignore it? Count it for less then a pillar (0.3)?
Post by: pervepic on August 16, 2011, 05:42:09 pm
1. Overall, for the upgraded decks, we should count that 1 Tower should produce 7 quanta but not much more (if we don't count marks then it would be 6 and if we want to play with unupped cards, then it would be near 5 as also SG suggested). Mark counts as a Tower. Rush decks should have more Towers, control decks could have less (giving 6 or even 8 quanta accordingly). Costless quanta producing critters are Towers. Critters that produce quanta and cost 1 are semi-towers. Pests count as neither Towers nor critters - the best way to count them is to leave them uncounted. If you have 6 critters that use 1 cost ability, add a tower; if they use 2-cost abilities, add 2. Etc. But that's not all.
2. Quanta producers overall (Towers, Novas, Pests, Immos etc) should have at least 1/3 room in the whole deck (or you can most likely play either quanta producer or something cheap feeded by mark in the next turn). Here, in this calculation, Pests count as Towers. Marks don't count, because they are not in the deck. But sometimes there are exceptions - Poison rush can do well even with 9 Towers, because it uses few quanta.
3. In whatever deck (mono, duo, trio) and no matter how much quanta you are planning to use, the amount of quanta producers of the specific element shouldn't be smaller than 1/6 of the deck size. That's near to minimum.
Rainbows are a bit different story, but overall the amount of quanta producers should be the same there too.
For Novas and Supernovas it's good to use near the 1/3 costing stuff from overall quanta they give (2 and 4 accordingly). 1/2 is close to maximum. With the Cremation it is quite similar thing: one can really count on between 1/3 and 1/2 quanta it promises to give. 4 Towers in upgraded Rainbow are mathematically close to 1 Tower in Mono, but it really may take some time if you get those Towers. A Rainbow without Supernovas is just 4 times (actually quite a bit more in practice) slower in terms of producing quanta to one element. Shouldn't it have 4 times more Towers? No :). Because you will get killed before you draw defensive cards. And luckily you don't usually have to collect quanta for the single element only, Rainbow has 12 options. In case of the bigger Rainbows it can vary how many quanta you can use from each element, because you should have more time to collect quanta. For example, in a 30-card and 4-Towers Supernova deck you should use 5-6 cost critters, not much more expensive ones, but a 60-card Timebow with 22 Towers and without the Novas can easily use like 20 quanta per element and even more (still-still you should really not to put there more than 1/4 costing stuff a same size mono deck could put there and besides balanced Rainbows are better, because they are quicker, since they often use all elements). But in that case don't use Supernovas and use at least 1 Hourglass per 10 cards. And a lot of shields. And Sundials are still good cards. To put it very brutally: because of the slowness, in a fat Rainbow you should count as if each Tower gives you only 1 quantum per each element, in a small deck with only few Towers this number is something like 0,5. In the small deck which uses only Towers and not Supernovas, this number is something like 0,7-0,8. This means that in practice the difference in quanta production for the given element between mono Tower and Quantum Tower is at least 7 imo (quite a bit more than just a mathematical 4). Btw I guess that there is no reason to count a mark in the Rainbow as something less than a mono-Tower.
Post by: Pineapple on August 17, 2011, 03:52:49 pm
Quote
I wondered if an answer was found regarding quantum pillars and towers. It would also be nice if you could somehow include pendulums, too. And Novas? And for non-mono, non-rainbow deck (like, 2 or 3 colors), how do you do it? Count each color separetely?Here's how I do it, remembering to take my QI with a grain of salt because QI is geared towards end-game efficiency and should therefore only be used a rule of thumb:
Each element's QI in a deck is calculated separately. Mark is counted as 2 pillars, under the reasoning that 1 pillar card will on average be drawn after going through half of the deck, in which around half the game has progressed, and would therefore generate half as much quanta for the full game than a mark generates.
Since each element is calculated separately, pendulums count as 1/2 a pillar for both elements (although the quanta of the pendulum's element produced by a stack of pendulums is almost always higher than the quanta produced in any point of the game, since half the time it's higher from that element being produced for one more turn and the other half the time the two elements have equal generation from the stack... QI is geared towards end-game efficiency).
Also, quantum pillars count as 3 pillars that generate 1/12 quanta for each element, or as 1/4 a pillar for each element.
In addition, quanta generating creatures count as pillars. You add to the pillars for Light by 1 for each RoL, add to the pillars for Earth by 1 for each gnome rider, add to the pillars by 1 for each devourer, etc.
Quanta generation that is not produced in a turn-by-turn fashion and is instead instant (nova, immolation, the +1 from towers and upped pendulums) I treat as negative cost. This is because, just as playing a creature reduces all the quanta you've generated in that game by a fixed cost, playing a nova increases all the quanta you've generated in the game by a fixed value (1 per element).
The flaws of treating instant quanta as negative cost is that classical QI can be used for rushes while the tangents up there build off how QI is based on using all the quanta generated in one game.
Post by: I8SumOrangesNItWasK on October 28, 2011, 02:03:35 pm
The first card is a non-upgraded SoR.
My deck runs into many problems which makes it hard for me to calculuate the QI, but here's what I did:
-I count my deck as a trio-deck. However, since I don't have any :gravity pillars at all (and it works that way), I simply chose to ignore the elment entirely.
-I count Shards of Readiness as being equally divided among all 3 elements, :gravity included.
-Since I'm ignoring :gravity, I don't count the Chimera at all, nor do I count the Scarabs' "Devour" cost. It would be pretty hard to calculate even if I wanted to.
-I have 6 Mummies in my deck, all of which count towards :death. I usually end up with about 2 Pharoahs out by the end of the game (or, at least there's no point in having more). I counted using the ability of 3 Pharaohs though, because other cards that may not necessarily make it out are all conted for. I figure I go through about 2/3 of the deck each game, so about 2/3 of the Pharoahs are used. Makes sense.
-I typically use my first SoR on a Pharoah, and second on a Scarab. Because of this, I counted 2 of the Pharoahs' abilities twice, but 1 of them only once (assuming that possibly I'll only use :time for it half the time).
-I counted towers as not only "pillars", but as -1 quanta each.
-I counted Eternity's ability twice, since if I have one out and can use it, I'm probably going to use it on something. It may be situational, but mainly only to save :time. If :time isn't an issue, I usually use it.
Following all the above "rules", I ended up with very close to 6 QI in :death (5 26/27) and very close to 4 QI in :time (3 17/18). Putting the 2 together, I end up with close to 5 (4 42/45). That sounds good, and all, but it makes me wonder why my QI for :death is so much higher than my QI for :time. Do you suppose it could be because :death is more important at the beginning of the duel (I need to get Mummies out, need a steady Bone Wall, etc.) while :time is more important at the end (I need to keep generating scrabas, I don't need to put out more Bone Walls once they start devouring)? To me, this makes sense, because the less-important one can "wait" until later and you have more of a chance to draw the right cards while your waiting, while the more-important one you need right away or you can't do anything. Am I onto something here, or are both of my QI's just way off, but in opposite dirrections...and maybe they should be the same? o.O
P.S.: If you count :gravity mark as 2 pilars, then I can only be alloted about 1/3 points for Devour (due to the Chimera's massive 7 and the SoR's 8/3) in order to have a QI for 5 in :gravity. Even though it's situational, I typically do have plenty of :gravity throughout the game (RoL + Fractal + Hope comes to mind as a good example as to when I don't...). Interesting that it seems my QI would be realatively low if I were able to acctualy calculate Devour properly.
Post by: I8SumOrangesNItWasK on October 28, 2011, 02:21:16 pm
LOL /fail
http://www.quantum-index.com/qi.php?deckCode=4ta+52g+52g+52g+52g+52g+52g+52r+52r+52r+52r+52t+52t+52t+52t+560+5rk+5rk+5rk+6rq+710+710+710+71d+71d+7q0+7q0+7q0+7q0+7q0+7q0+7q8+8pl&showImage=1
Proof that computers truly aren't smarter than humans.
This "tool" has various flaws in my deck alone, but most importantly doesn't take into account the innate ability of the mummy to turn into a :time-sucking machine.
Post by: Xinef on October 28, 2011, 11:45:50 pm
It seems that the disproportion between your :death and :time is caused by the fact that your deck is a mix between a rush and a control deck. The mummies are a kind of death rush, so it's natural that higher QI works better. You want to play them as early as possible. On the other hand the time part of your deck is more about control. Having a lot of :time early would be ineffective, since you'd have no mummies to rewind, and Pharaohs+Scarabs need a few turns to pay off. In those early turns you can deal much more damage with a few mummies than with half as much pharaohs (considering you need more quanta and cards to create a pharaoh, it's hard to compare how many pharaohs or mummies you can create with the same amount of cards and quanta, so I assumed half as much).
A typical deck has too few quanta during the first few turns to play everything in your hand, than approximately enough during midgame to play one card each turn, then during endgame you have more quanta production than you can spend. If you intend to use a specific element mostly during midgame/endgame, you can have lower production of that element, since the early phase is not an issue. You can have enough production to have exactly enough quanta during endgame, rather than too much.
As for the :gravity and your mark, you should simply assume that your total :gravity production is equal to the average number of turns a battle lasts. You say you typically go through 2/3 of your deck, so your mark is worth at least 3/2 of a pillar, in fact more since that would be the case only if you draw 2/3 of your pillars in your starting hand, than none afterwards. Pillars drawn later in the game are worth less.
I think you can calculate how much your mark is worth using a following algorithm:
- Divide the number of pillars in your deck by the total number of cards. Eg. 15/32 in your case.
- Multiply the number by 7.5 (an average starting hand size) to get the average number of pillars in your starting hand. In your case it is ~3.515625
- Calculate how many cards you will draw after the first turn. Assuming you win or lose after drawing 2/3 of your deck, and assuming you draw 7.5 cards during your first turn, it means you draw a total of 32 * 2/3 = ~21.333333333 cards, out of which ~13.833333333 are drawn after the first turn.
- Calculate how many of these are pillars. You simply have to multiply the previous result by the number you got in 1. so you get
13.833333333 * 15/32 = ~6.484375 - Divide by two, since an average pillar out of these will be present for half the battle.
6.484375 / 2 = ~3.2421875 - Add this number to the result of the 2. and you get the average number of pillars you have during your whole game. In your case that gives ~6.7578125
- In 3. we found out that your average battle lasts ~13.833333333 turns, so that's the average number of quanta generated by your mark.
- Multiply the result of 6. by the number of turns of your average battle and divide by the number of pillars in your deck to get average quantum production of a single pillar. In your case:
6.7578125 * 13.833333333 / 15 = 6.232204861 - This means that your mark is worth approximately 13.833333333 / 6.232204861 = ~2,219653179 times as much as a pillar
Post by: jmdt on November 12, 2011, 08:04:05 pm
After my first pass reading I do have a few comments. a LONG time ago when I first started deck building, I used to build all my decks off of a spreadsheet. I set it up to give stats such as QI, draw probability, etc. I used to start with everything at 5, but as an engineer I'd always run say 10-20 tests versus the AI and watch how the deck launches versus how much quanta is available late in the game. Ultimately the ideal QI is the position were over a medium sample size you A.) generally always have the quanta to play cards as you get them and B.) Generally don't have ton of quanta of that element built up by the time of win. Unfortunately, a hard QI number generally does not take this into account.
The next thing you look at is the overall speed of the deck. For a rush you want to play your hand faster so you need more pillars early to dump everything. Generally you win in 5-8 turns so with a low QI, you do not have the time to generate excess levels of quanta unless something goes wrong. Speaking of something going wrong, in the real world, a pure rush is generally not the preferred option as CC can take a heavy toll on the deck and you will have tons of quanta and nothing to play it on. When I used to experiemt with rushes, one thing I studied was the effect of adding the 9 hp powerhouse Jade dragon to bolster the fact that the faster frogs are easy to kill. I learned that with 2-3 dragons that the ttw was not too much lower, maybe 0.2-0.4, but the deck was able to deal with adversity 100x better as Jade played the role of the late game finisher versus heavy CC decks. The ideal of using 1-3 big creatures with the rest of the deck is the idea of the 'quanta sink'. With a quanta sink you do not necessicarily have the fastest possible deck, but the deck will launch fast and be able to keep quanta balanced over a short and long game.
Along the same principle, even for rush decks, The QI and hence number if pillars depends on the size of the critters you need to get out for USEM since all the cards cost 1-3, the deck gets a QI of 4 with 10 pillars. I never actually run less than 10 pillars as the probibilities of drawing them gets too low. For a deck such as the shrieker rush, you run like 17 pillars to power the bulky cards on there way out. The same way 10 pillars leaves you with 1 or no pillar starts a small % of the time, 17 pillars will give 6 or 7 pillar starts. I always like 12-14 pillars based on probabilities to have the most optimal draws, but again, this depends on the what other critters and toys you roll in the deck.
My last general consideration for QI is the damage and stalling potential of the deck. USEM has a total combined damage of 72. Its a 'weenie rush' it will either flood the field fast for damage or it does not have the big hitters to catch up late game (ignoring heal obviously). A shrieker rush has a total damage potential of 126 so over time it can ramp oout a ton more damage. Against healing and/or CC sometimes bulk damage becomes very important and must be taken into consideration. With stalls, one must look at the immediacy of quanta need. Yeah 6 phase shields cost a ton, but you don't have to play them all at the same time either. With a mere 2 pillars, you can chain phase shields indefinitely. With 1 pillar on the field, you can chain wings out almost the entire game. So in cases of chaining cards or wanting to save cards instead of playing them immediately a much higher QI number can be effectively used.
That's my quick random unorganized thoughts on QI on a Saturday afternoon. Hopefully that helps you a bit to understand QI in a variety of decks.
Post by: Gunthar on March 05, 2012, 08:40:49 pm
A solar shield or a soul catcher are requiring some creatures attacking the shield owner or dying. This is quite difficult to calculate in because it is depend on the deck build and the opponents deck. Solar shield costs 3 :light while the soul catcher costs none. But a solar shield is a bit easier to deploy than a soul catcher because solar shield is :light and it creates :light quanta while the soul catcher needs some cards who kills creatures (plaque) or have a kill like effect like the Schrödinger Cat. Some tests showed to me that a soul catcher can be considered as about 1 quanta or like a pillar while a solar shield can be counted even as 1.5 to 2 :light quanta.
Another aspect are adrenalined quanta generating creatures like gnomeriders or the upped gemriders, dragonfly/damselfly, fireflies/elite fireflies and similars. The strange thing is that it does not count for the devourer. Adrenalined quanta generating creatures are producing much more quanta per round than with no quanta. A test shows up to 4 or 5 quanta per round. But you need a card that uses 4 or 3 (upped) :life quanta or a life nymph to accomplish that. The most interesting effect is that even in the round when the quanta generating creature is played and then adrenalized it will create the additional quanta. Furthermore the upped version of some quanta generating creatures are playable with no quanta at all. They can replace some of the pillars quite well. An 1/1 quanta creature can be destroyed easier than a 1/2 creature. Therefore a 1/1 can not be counted as a full pillar replacement.
Post by: BluePriest on March 06, 2012, 04:46:52 pm
Post by: Gunthar on March 06, 2012, 09:36:56 pm
Post by: Xinef on March 07, 2012, 05:38:04 pm
It is like adding the quanta cost for the hasten ability to every card (including pillars and penduli) in the deck.Not really every card in the deck. The 7/8 starting cards, and one card on every consecutive turn are still free. Even a deck with 6 hourglasses, golden nymphs, or sundials/precognitions will rarely draw more than half of the cards through 'paid' means.
Another thing worth noting is that drawing cards faster than once per turn allows you to draw pillars/pendulums/other quanta sources at a faster rate. Thus, you will both spend more quanta, and gain more quanta, than a player without those cards would in a given number of turns.
A good example is an upgraded Time Tower. There is no real difference between spending one :time to draw it one turn earlier, or not spending one :time and getting it one turn later. At least from the QI point of view, since it might make a difference if opponent is using earthquake or you are under effect of Neurotoxin, or you are going to deck out etc.
Anyway, in a deck with a given amount of cards, pillars are in fact worth more (as in giving you more quanta throughout the whole battle) if you have means of accelerating the card drawing than if you don't. Thus, if a given algorithm of calculating QI does consider the amount of quanta spent on abilities, it should also consider the amount gained by these abilities, even if it is indirect such as through drawing an additional pillar.
Post by: Thurhame on May 31, 2012, 09:21:24 am
Ya know, someone smart (aka not me) could probably discover what the perfect QI would be based on the amount of turns you are planning to win in.
I have done that. http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,40886.0.html (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,40886.0.html)