AI3 GRINDING: LUDICROUS SPEED deck

[Uncle Jellyfish]

I narrowly beat a crappier version of this in PvP...>.< Sundial saved my ass...=/

[Uncle Jellyfish]

Btw, i took away antlion and sword and got 2 unupgraded (=cheaper) shields, useful if you've not so much creatures upgraded

EDIT: btw, what BS means?

BS = Bullsh*t

Why run shields? This is a speed deck, so the point is to outdamage your opponent as fast as possible. If you put in shields, then you're not only wasting quanta on slowing the opponent instead of killing them, but you're also setting up something that can be stolen, which would then slow YOU down. Using the Sword is better, because it's extra damage each turn, it's cheap, and who cares if it's stolen? As for the Antlion, I'd personally just take it out and run an extra tower, or another Sword, in case yours was stolen or destroyed.

[Dragoon]

It's a pretty sweet deck.  I was putting together a starter deck for beginners that used a similar strategy as this deck.  But I like your version better.  I think I'll tweek it a little more though for the starter deck.

[joob]

Drop the antlion and add the gnome imo

Gnomes aren't as good as towers. You end up with 2 less quanta overall (since towers give 1 and gnomes cost 1), and they only deal 1 damage. The only reason brimstones are used in monofire is because they do twice the damage and can be cremated.

Sweet deck, btw. Currently doing a bit of testing to get a legit comparison to monofire.

[Scaredgirl]

Drop the antlion and add the gnome imo

Yep, the antlion is too throw away. but i prefer 1 tower more instead of gnome

@ scaredgirl: i've changed the comment to the sceenshot. Now we have justice. My only mean was to show that even with the fastest start, the mono red is slower than a good start with this deck. Just it. We spent too much time in mathematical argues for a banal thing...

And I only meant to correct you in something you said as a "fact". Like what you are doing in that highlighted part AGAIN.

Mono fire with a good start is faster. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a mathematical FACT.

[Scaredgirl]

Drop the antlion and add the gnome imo

Yep, the antlion is too throw away. but i prefer 1 tower more instead of gnome

@ scaredgirl: i've changed the comment to the sceenshot. Now we have justice. My only mean was to show that even with the fastest start, the mono red is slower than a good start with this deck. Just it. We spent too much time in mathematical argues for a banal thing...

And I only meant to correct you in something you said as a "fact". Like what you are doing in that highlighted part AGAIN.

Mono fire with a good start is faster. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a mathematical FACT.

:S Again! Well you could tell me before because that part has been there all the time, from the beginning.
But just think about it: the ai3 grinding mono-fire on turn 3 can have 1 dragon and 2-3 fire eaters. That's it. Maybe a farheneit if lucky (only 1 in all the deck). The start with more mana is like 7 towers, then dragon on 2nd turn, then fire eater/sword, then dragon on 4th, then another little thing on turn 5. That means you have max 2 dragons only on turn 5 plus some smaller hitting thing (instead of some tower you can have some fire eater of course, but i'm not going to calculate details). With this deck you can have 3 shriek on turn 3 doing 30 damage, then graboid on turn4, then shriek on turn 5 + one evolving grab.

It's fact that in both these two starts the match ends on turn 5. Whatever of them you play. But on turn 3 this deck has 30 damage on, the other will have about 20 (15 for dragon + 2-3 eaters). On turn 5 both will have huge power: 30 dmg of dragons + 4-10 of others for red. 50 for mine.

So, in the fastest start, the match has same duration but mine does more damage, so i can say it's faster (against a shield damage may count a lot).

Details: red damage: 2 + 17 + 19 + 34 + 40 (means 1 fe+1 d+1fe+1d+1farh[+1 dmg for quanta]) = 112
       time/earth dmg:  2 + 12 + 30 + 32 + 50 (look above) = 126

Just for a few, but it's a FACT

Just stop thinking that red must be faster because of high damage, it's not so.

Btw, i'm starting having fun in this argue

I personally would have more fun with this argument if you made more sense.

Lol, do you even read what you write? You said:
"My only mean was to show that even with the fastest start, the mono red is slower than a good start with this deck."

You are saying that even if mono fire had the FASTEST possible start, your deck would still be faster with a GOOD start. That is simply incorrect, and no matter how many times you SAY it is correct, does not make it so.

You calculations there describe a situation where both decks have the fastest possible start. This is not the "good" start what you talked about earlier. But it does not really matter because your calculations are WRONG.

The REAL fastest start with mono fire:

TURN 1:
play 6 x Towers and 1 x Brimstone Eater
total damage 2
13 quantum

TURN 2:
draw and play Dragon
total damage 19
9 quantum

TURN 3:
draw and play Brimstone Eater
total damage 38
17 quantum

TURN 4:
draw and play Dragon
total damage 72
14 quantum

TURN 5:
draw and play Dragon
total damage 121



Fastest start with earth deck:

TURN 1:
play 6 x Towers and 1 x Graboid
total damage 2
10 quantum

TURN 2:
draw and play Shrieker
total damage 22
9 quantum

TURN 3:
draw and play Shrieker
total damage 52
8 quantum

TURN 4:
draw and play Shrieker
total damage 92
7 quantum

TURN 5:
draw and play Long Sword
total damage 138


As you can see, both of these decks can potentially win in 5 turns (not taking shields etc. into consideration). There is no way either of them can do 100+ damage in only 4 turns.

Also when talking about grinding, the best speed deck is the one that makes the most money in the shortest possible time. In this aspect mono fire is better because you don't need to evolve Graboids. It's a VERY small difference but every single extra click you have to make, will increase the grinding time.

CONCLUSION:
Good start with your deck is NOT faster than the fastest start with mono fire. In fact both decks need close to a perfect start to be able to win in 5 turns.
Now this argument has gone way too far and is totally useless. But that is only because you for some reason refuse to see the facts and admit you are wrong.

[turin]

Drop the antlion and add the gnome imo

Yep, the antlion is too throw away. but i prefer 1 tower more instead of gnome

@ scaredgirl: i've changed the comment to the sceenshot. Now we have justice. My only mean was to show that even with the fastest start, the mono red is slower than a good start with this deck. Just it. We spent too much time in mathematical argues for a banal thing...

[turin]

Drop the antlion and add the gnome imo

Yep, the antlion is too throw away. but i prefer 1 tower more instead of gnome

@ scaredgirl: i've changed the comment to the sceenshot. Now we have justice. My only mean was to show that even with the fastest start, the mono red is slower than a good start with this deck. Just it. We spent too much time in mathematical argues for a banal thing...

And I only meant to correct you in something you said as a "fact". Like what you are doing in that highlighted part AGAIN.

Mono fire with a good start is faster. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a mathematical FACT.

:S Again! Well you could tell me before because that part has been there all the time, from the beginning.
But just think about it: the ai3 grinding mono-fire on turn 3 can have 1 dragon and 2-3 fire eaters. That's it. Maybe a farheneit if lucky (only 1 in all the deck). The start with more mana is like 7 towers, then dragon on 2nd turn, then fire eater/sword, then dragon on 4th, then another little thing on turn 5. That means you have max 2 dragons only on turn 5 plus some smaller hitting thing (instead of some tower you can have some fire eater of course, but i'm not going to calculate details). With this deck you can have 3 shriek on turn 3 doing 30 damage, then graboid on turn4, then shriek on turn 5 + one evolving grab.

It's fact that in both these two starts the match ends on turn 5. Whatever of them you play. But on turn 3 this deck has 30 damage on, the other will have about 20 (15 for dragon + 2-3 eaters). On turn 5 both will have huge power: 30 dmg of dragons + 4-10 of others for red. 50 for mine.

So, in the fastest start, the match has same duration but mine does more damage, so i can say it's faster (against a shield damage may count a lot).

Details: red damage: 2 + 17 + 19 + 34 + 40 (means 1 fe+1 d+1fe+1d+1farh[+1 dmg for quanta]) = 112
       time/earth dmg:  2 + 12 + 30 + 32 + 50 (look above) = 126

Just for a few, but it's a FACT

Just stop thinking that red must be faster because of high damage, it's not so.

Btw, i'm starting having fun in this argue

[vice123]

 This deck looks awesome. It uses graboids which are plentiful thanks to Seism. Also, it uses uped earth towers, which I think is one of the best elements for pvp. If I had to up towers other than quantum, earth would be 1st on the line. A very nice combination of cards you can win from the false gods and towers you would need if you wanted to go pvp.

[Dragoon]

i dont think your dimostration is exact. At least in exposition: remember my deck is 16 towers, 6 graboids and 6 shireker, so your cases must be numbered  with towers 1-16, graboids 1-6 and shriekers 1-6, doing all possible combinations. You have even to take count of all exchnge possibilities  between cards in different turns, and all possibilities of unplayed cards. Then compare that number to all possible combinations (30² for turn 1) and you'll got it. Seems a huge work just to get an idea of it calculating turn 1...
 And there are even more cases: just shriek+ seven towers then graboid then shriek and more others. Supposing you start you leave the most effective cases :those starting with 1 card more!
Seems you argued to get the right, not to discover truth

My considerations:
At first glance it think that hands with lot of towers and graboids come often. You almost everytime have 2 shriekers on turn 3, but sometimes, as i've said, 3. And sometimes is not so uncommon, even quite common, practise demonstrate it.
I dont think to have exagerated: Just said i was searching for something faster than mono fire and with a ridicolous percentage of bad draws (by now, for me, 0 losses with just graboids and towers upgrade)
One day, when i'll be bored as you, i'll get you exact percentage dates

Btw, i took away antlion and sword and got 2 unupgraded (=cheaper) shields, useful if you've not so much creatures upgraded

EDIT: btw, what BS means?
EDIT: i've edited this reply just twice, to improve exposition and try not to sound aggressive (because i'm not, but my basic english sounds not so fair sometimes)

Just to help muddy the waters a little more  , let's look at the probabilities.  First I'm using a slightly modified version to help give easier percentages (18 pillars [60%], 6 graboids [20%], 6 shriekers [20%]).  In your opening 8 card hand, you should have 4-5 [4.8] towers and 3-4 [3.2] creatures (1-2 each of graboids and shriekers).  On turn 2, you should have 5-6 (5.4) towers and 3-4 (3.6) creatures.  By turn 3, you'll have 10 cards with 6 towers and 4 creatures (2 graboids and 2 shriekers).  This is the most probable 3-turn-draw based on the percentages of your different cards.

So let's look at the most probable situation.

Turn 1:
5 Towers, and 1) 2 Graboid and 1 Shrieker ; or 2) 2 Shrieker and 1 Graboid
Play 5 towers and Graboid
2 damage, 7 quantum

Turn 2:
Draw 1a) Shrieker / 2a) Graboid ; or 1b, 2b) Tower very possibly
Play 1a) Graboid or possibly 1b) Graboid and Tower ; or 2a) Graboid or possibly 2b) Tower and nothing
1a) 14 damage, 9 quantum ; 1b) 14 damage, 11 quantum ; 2a) 14 damage, 9 quantum ; 2b) 12 damage, 14 quantum

Turn 3:
Draw 1a, 2a) Tower ; or 1b, 2b) Shrieker/Graboid
Play 1a) Tower and Shrieker or possibly 1b) Shrieker; or 2a) Tower and Shrieker or 2b) Shrieker and Graboid
1a) 44 damage, 8 quantum ; 1b) 44 damage, 9 quantum ; 2a) 44 damage, 8 quantum ; 2b) 34 damage, 9 quantum

Turn 4
Draw Tower
Play Tower and Shrieker
1a, 2a) 84 damage, 8 quantum ; 1b) 84 damage, 9 quantum 2b) 74 damage, 9 quantum

Turn 5
Draw Shrieker/Graboid
Play Shrieker/Graboid
1a, 1b, 2a) 134 or 126 damage ; 2b) 124 or 116 damage

Sorry it's a little confusing.  Just trying to show the major probabilities.
Probabilities favor having 3 shriekers by turn 3 by a little, but honestly it doesn't matter.  Either way, you'll have 4 shriekers by turn 4 and finish them by the end of turn 5.  This is on average based on the percentages of each card you have.  Hope that helps a little. 

[Scaredgirl]

Supposing you start you leave the most effective cases :those starting with 1 card more!
Seems you argued to get the right, not to discover truth

Hmm. I missed that not-so-smart comment the first time.

This whole argument started because of your incorrect statement in the picture where you talked about how it was a "typical" start for this deck. And in this picture, YOU started and had 7 cards, not 8.

What actually happened was that you took a screenshot of the BEST POSSIBLE 7 CARD START that this deck can have, which happens maybe less than 5% of time, and called it "typical start".

I had played this deck before and I knew your statement was false, so I had to correct you. But of course you refused to admit anything, and then it just escalated from there..

I know a lot of people like to take best possible screenshots so that their deck looks better, but the problem is that when you do it and make up some BS under the picture, you lose all credibility. People who design decks should try to be objective about it, and not make up s*** or refuse to acknowledge the facts.

[turin]

Supposing you start you leave the most effective cases :those starting with 1 card more!
Seems you argued to get the right, not to discover truth

Hmm. I missed that not-so-smart comment the first time.

This whole argument started because of your incorrect statement in the picture where you talked about how it was a "typical" start for this deck. And in this picture, YOU started and had 7 cards, not 8.

What actually happened was that you took a screenshot of the BEST POSSIBLE 7 CARD START that this deck can have, which happens maybe less than 5% of time, and called it "typical start".

I had played this deck before and I knew your statement was false, so I had to correct you. But of course you refused to admit anything, and then it just escalated from there..

I know a lot of people like to take best possible screenshots so that their deck looks better, but the problem is that when you do it and make up some BS under the picture, you lose all credibility. People who design decks should try to be objective about it, and not make up s*** or refuse to acknowledge the facts.

You think in a strange way: because i  used an exaple with a won coin start you think that a tipical start with this deck must be with a winning coin start? What a strange argument...And about my first statement, i admitted it was wrong from the first reply.

Then, you know i've said that my first opinion was wrong and that a 3 shriek start on turn 3 is not tipical.
You've seen i said both this deck and mono fire kill in 5 turn with an awesome start.
You've seen and repeated that my deck does more damage with a perfect start, so, probably, with an average start it will do more damage!!! Seems so simple....

And, btw, i never called your "not so working" agruments bs. Even if i had all the rights to do it. Seems more fair to try to collaborate