TTW vs EPG & SPG

[BluePriest]

So I was thinking about something when I decided to make a Rush/slight EM deck. If I am only for ex, 1 turn slower using an EM deck, and yet, I recieve EMs 50% more, wouldnt the EM deck be better to run?

I suppose this is also based on one more factor. if you finish the game with 99hp how much score do you gain? With EM's you get 35, but Im unsure of 99. AI3 is more for score than anything if I am correct, so this would be the main factor. But then again, if there was a relation between the EPG and the SPG then just knowing the EPG would be more than enough. Anyone do number crunching already? EPG would obviously be before spins.

[pikachufan2164]

I haven't kept track of the corresponding HP to electrum/score gain ranges, but I noticed that electrum earned = score gained (unless it's an EM, in which it's 40 electrum and 35 score) for AI3.

[TheonlyrealBeef]

Finishing ai3 gives you this much score (assuming max hp = 100).

HP	Score
0-9	10
10-19	11
20-29	12
30-39	13
40-49	14
50-59	15
60-69	16
70-79	17
80-89	18
90-99	19
100	35

So basically 10 + (current hp)/10 rounded down unless you get EM.
Finishing with 0 hp is actually possible with Voodoo Doll.

[hrmmm]

in the (old) Win Time Study - Pro Stats for Pro Grinders. (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,11935.0.html) we gathered stats for questions like these.

there you can see that em decks get about double score and electrum/min as the fastest decks.

it was tested on the old ai3, but generally you we can say for grinding ai3 heal/em decks are more efficient then pure rushes.

[BluePriest]

Finishing ai3 gives you this much score (assuming max hp = 100).

HP	Score
0-9	10
10-19	11
20-29	12
30-39	13
40-49	14
50-59	15
60-69	16
70-79	17
80-89	18
90-99	19
100	35

So basically 10 + (current hp)/10 rounded down unless you get EM.
Finishing with 0 hp is actually possible with Voodoo Doll.

is calculated the same way, im fairly certain, so we should be able to calculate a formula to tell us the score if we know the electrum and vice versa.....

Get Score from 
50 Games
8 EM
1020 
(-(EM*5))/Games=SPG=19.6

Get  from  Score
50 Games
8 EM
980 Score
(Score+(EM*5))/Games=EPG=20.4

Now how should that relate to ttw is the question? How can we take that information, and say without a doubt, that a deck is better to farm with even though it isnt quite as fast?

EPG:TTW Ratio-Determining A Decks Efficiency Index

The Ultimate Speed EM Deck
Electrum: 1690, Wins: 50, Ems: 34, Losses: 0, Avg ttw: 6.66
1690/50=33.8=EPG
33.8/6.66=5.075=EI

V2--Fire Tweaked to Max Speed
Electrum: 925, Wins: 50, Ems: 1, Losses: 0, Avg ttw: 5.24
925/50=18.5=EPG
18.5/5.14=3.60=EI

So even though The Ultimate Speed EM Deck is slower, it is a lot more efficient than V2--Fire Tweaked to Max Speed, and thus, should be preferred.

The Spins do throw a wrench into this if going for  , however, AI3 is meant mainly for score so this should hardly matter. If you do want to take them into account though, you must know how many games before  V2 has a 1-up on EM.

Im having a brain stop right now though, so if someone could calculate that for me it would be great

Also note, Im not considering any of this to be new. It is all new to me, and at the very least, I have never seen it all calculated out.

[Hyroen]

*Gasp* It's 35? I thought it was 40!! Should it appear in game as 35 coins? Do only 35 get added?

[willng3]

*Gasp* It's 35? I thought it was 40!! Should it appear in game as 35 coins? Do only 35 get added?

I'm confused by this.  35 for score, 40 electrum.  35 score gets added, 40 electrum gets added for EMs.

For other levels of AI difficulty the gap between score and electrum is increased further.  T50, for instance, is 60 for electrum and 50 score.  I haven't paid enough attention when playing FGs and HBs to know the amount for those, however.

[Hyroen]

I should never ask questions when I first wake up u_u.

Score, gotcha.

[BluePriest]

So wouldnt a study based on efficiency instead of ttw be more useful than a strict ttw study? I mean, most healing decks would probably be able to beat the pure rush decks in a 1v1 battle anyways. That extra turn the em deck would need would easily be healed up allowing it to take the win.

[willng3]

So wouldnt a study based on efficiency instead of ttw be more useful than a strict ttw study? I mean, most healing decks would probably be able to beat the pure rush decks in a 1v1 battle anyways. That extra turn the em deck would need would easily be healed up allowing it to take the win.

If there were a plethora of consistent, speedy EM decks then yes I would be all for this.  However, as it stands I can think of 7 decks which truly qualify as Speed EM decks which fit this criteria; none of which are unupped.  One of the core principles of the TTW Study was to provide decks for fairly new players to give them ideas of what to use for grinding purposes; I have yet to see an unupped deck which can EM consistently and not lose enough to imbalance the EM winnings completely (the Pepoker used to fit this criteria, but with the new AI it no longer works efficiently IMHO).  Any deck which requires 11-12+ average TTW is too slow to make it an efficient EM grinder.  There is also another purpose of the TTW Study.  Not only does it demonstrate time spent to win duels, thus making score/electrum calculation possible, it gives players a method of comparing decks and deciding which among them gives them the best speed for dueling.  In saying this, it establishes trends in speed which are used very often for speed grinding T50, or rushing PvP in general.  So, would a study based on EM/score be useful?  Yes, it would be very useful with more time.  Should it replace the TTW Study completely?  No, I don't believe it should.

[jmdt]

So wouldnt a study based on efficiency instead of ttw be more useful than a strict ttw study? I mean, most healing decks would probably be able to beat the pure rush decks in a 1v1 battle anyways. That extra turn the em deck would need would easily be healed up allowing it to take the win.

When we started studying ttw, speed EM decks didn't exist.  The goal was to find the fastest deck in the game, and we found a plethora of newer/better/faster decks.  For the first time the community became aware of general deck speed and tried to improve it.  Along the way, with help from a few others, I started exploring what exactly an EM deck could do.  The old addage was that EMs were a waste of time, and with decks like the ffq deck as the ultimate EM deck at the time it was waranted.  The first 'speed EM deck' I looked at was terribly slow and inefficient, but game me the idea to do some tweaking and ultimately I settled at the current version that I'm happy with.  The win time study I worked on was a way to quantify just how this worked.  I developed an algorythm that would give hard values for score and electrum per hour as a means to compare these decks.  I never had time to finish this completely, but we did see that  at a certain point, the fastest decks are more efficient than slower EM decks.   Efficiency studies are complicated in that you must have very detailed notes over a large number of games and must have a running tally of score and electrum otherwise the results must be replaced.  Ultimately efficiency data is more difficult to attain so we stick with the boader easier to understand ttw value.

[BluePriest]

Sorry, would have replied to this 2 days ago, but no joke, as SOON as I pushed the submit post button, my internet cut out due to comcast having horrible customer service, and didnt get it back until today.

We dont have to go as far as determining the number of clicks or time per a game, but wouldnt getting a ratio of the EGP:TTW be a better result than flat ttw? I mean, several players already keep track of the anyways when doing the ttw study. This would hardly require any extra work.