Post by: Chival on December 15, 2009, 10:09:52 pm
This thread became completely disorganized during the forum move. To view the actual deck posted by turin, please view this link: http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,482.msg4409.html#msg4409
have you tried this with the upgraded gnomes? thay add stone quanta each turn
Post by: Chival on December 15, 2009, 10:09:52 pm
yeah ive thought about this, but i mindlessly grind, i dont even pay attention enough to use the creatures abilities.
Post by: dimmesdale on December 15, 2009, 10:09:52 pm
well this is really fast!! and since there are only 4types of cards its very stable.(but a bit dull...) truly effective
Post by: ElementalGod on December 15, 2009, 10:09:52 pm
Drop the antlion and add the gnome imohave you tried this with the upgraded gnomes? thay add stone quanta each turni wont because of time mark: towers are better, you need them and they leave you the chance to have more useful creatures, and that poor 1 attack...
Post by: Scaredgirl on December 15, 2009, 10:09:52 pm
I tried this deck for about 20+ matches. I would say it's about as fast as Chivals fire deck. It's not "ludicrously" fast. :)
One thing I would change though. I think your version has too many high cost creatures. I found this deck to work MUCH better when I dropped Antilion and one Shrieker, and took Towers instead. This way you won't get not so many bad draws where your opening hand is full of Shriekers that you cannot afford to pay. Try it, it works better.
Oh, and that "typical" situation you have there is not typical. During those 20+ matches I don't think I once had 3 Shriekers on the table at the end of turn 3. It's usually at around turn 4 or 5.
As conclusion I like deck better than that fire deck. They are both fast but this one wins more frequently. It's almost impossible to lose with this one (I didn't lose once) but with that fire deck you can easily lose if you get a bad draw (I tested it again today and go totally owned be level 3 light guy).
I still prefer fast rainbow deck for level 3 farming because it's not nearly as boring to play as these two and it's almost as fast.
Post by: Scaredgirl on December 15, 2009, 10:09:52 pm
i must agree with you: i just tested this deck in trainer just for 6-7 matches and got always good starts like the one above. Now i'm using a not fully upgraded version in real game and i noticed it's not truly tipical , but still quite common, to have 3 shrieker on ground at turn 3.Hypothesis: Your argument is BS. :)
So i continue to love it :), those graboids are so good!
And about speed: i'm sure that with a scientific study and deep statistics i can dimostrate it's faster than chival's mono red :P
Lets have fun and do some math. Looking at that screenshot of the "typical" situation we can clearly see what cards you were dealt and what cards you played. Here is the summary:
Because you have 21 cards left at the end of your 3rd turn, that means you won the coin toss and started with 7 cards.
TURN 1.
Hand: 4 x Towers, 1 x Shrieker, 2 x Graboid
Play: 4 x Towers, 1 X Graboid
Earth Towers: 4
Earth quantum: 5
Time quantum: 0
Damage dealt to opponent: 2
On the table: 1 x Graboid
TURN 2.
Draw: 1 x Tower
Hand: 1 x Tower, 1 x Shriker, 1 x Graboid
Play: 1 x Tower, 1 x Graboid
Earth Towers: 5
Earth quantum: 8
Time quantum: 0
Damage dealt to opponent: 12
On the table: 1 x Shrieker, 1 x Graboid
TURN 3.
Draw: 1 x Shrieker
Hand: 2 x Shriker
Play: 1 x Shrieker
Earth Towers: 5
Earth quantum: 0 (before pressing SPACE)
Time quantum: 0
On the table: 3 x Shrieker
This was exactly how the game on your screenshot went. There are no other possibilities because then either your quantum or damage dealt would be different.
What needs to happen in order to get 3 Shriekers at the end of turn 3?
1. You have to play 2 x Graboids and 1 x Shrieker
There are no other possible combinations. You cannot afford under any circumstances play for more than 1 x Shrieker or evolve more than 2 x Graboids (mark of Time).
2. In your opening hand you have to have 4, 5 or 6 Towers (Pillars won't do)
If you have less than 4, you won't be able to pay for 2 x Graboid and 1 x Shrieker. If you have 7, you won't be able to draw 3 creatures.
3. In your opening hand you have to have 1 Graboid
See #4.
4. You have to have played 2 Graboids at the end of turn 2
If you haven't played 2 Graboids on the table at the end of turn 2, you won't be able to turn them into Shriekers and have 3 Shriekers at the end of turn 3.
5. You have to play Shrieker during turn 3.
There is no other way. See #4.
Possible draws
At the end of turn 3 you have drawn 9 cards from your deck. When we look at the "what needs to happen" above, these are all the possible hands you have to be dealt:
TURN 1: 4 x Towers, 1 x Shrieker (or during turn 3), 2 x Graboid
TURN 2: 1 x Tower
TURN 3: 1 x Shrieker (or during turn 1)
TURN 1: 5 x Towers, 1 x Shrieker (or during turn 3), 1 x Graboid
TURN 2: 1 x Graboid
TURN 3: 1 x Shrieker (or during turn 1)
TURN 1: 5 x Towers, 2 x Graboid
TURN 2: 1 x Shrieker (or during next turn)
TURN 3: 1 x Shrieker (or during previous turn)
TURN 1: 6 x Towers, 1 x Graboid
TURN 2: 1 x Graboid
TURN 3: 1 x Shrieker
As you can see there are only a handful of situations where you will have 3 Shriekers on the table at the end of turn 3.
So you see after looking at the evidence, it's very clear that having 3 Shriekers at the end of turn is actually very unlikely even with a fully upgraded deck, let alone partly unupgraded one like in your original claim.
I think we can safely conclude that my original hypothesis is in fact true and your claim is BS.
All this has of course little to do with anything. I just felt the need to correct your statement because I've seen a lot of people here like to exaggerate the effectiveness of their deck. :)
Yeah.. I was REALLY bored. :)
Post by: turin on December 15, 2009, 10:09:52 pm
But i asked myself if there was something even more fast (!). I found my answer in Shrieker: the elite version has the same damage/cost ratio than ruby dragons, and that's the highest of the game between 10+ hitting creatures (ok, a giant frog ratio is better, but kills toooo slower).
But the most important thing is: you can play 12 (!!!) of them, just having graboids! So, even if they hit less than dragons, you'll keep spamming them for all the match (just few turns ;)) and there's no risk of not drawing the right creatures.
here the deck, TIME mark:
Only problem is devourers who tend to rob time quantum, but probably you'll have already evolved a pair of graboids before, so there will be no more need. About the sword and the antlion: they're just the cheapest cards i found to improve hittin' power, rare weapons arent good for this deck.
Here a situation of good start on turn 3 (not for AI who has no pillars, but for you). In the mono-red, even with the fastest start, at this point you'll have some fire eater and one dragon, no more (at least a farhenheit).
(http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/1834/ludturn3.png)
And here that's me testing this deck:
(http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/6964/ludicroussb.jpg)
enjoy
Post by: turin on December 15, 2009, 10:09:52 pm
i must agree with you: i just tested this deck in trainer just for 6-7 matches and got always good starts like the one above. Now i'm using a not fully upgraded version in real game and i noticed it's not truly tipical , but still quite common, to have 3 shrieker on ground at turn 3.
So i continue to love it :), those graboids are so good!
And about speed: i'm sure that with a scientific study and deep statistics i can dimostrate it's faster than chival's mono red :P
Post by: turin on December 15, 2009, 10:09:52 pm
have you tried this with the upgraded gnomes? thay add stone quanta each turni wont because of time mark: towers are better, you need them and they leave you the chance to have more useful creatures, and that poor 1 attack...
Post by: turin on December 15, 2009, 10:09:52 pm
I narrowly beat a crappier version of this in PvP...>.< Sundial saved my ass...=/obviously it's not for pvp :D. But a gravity version with shrieker+gravity pull+pulverizer could be really good: good creature and permanent control and possibility of making your creatures immortal. Hadn't tried it yet because i've only one pulv and it needs at least 2.
Post by: turin on December 15, 2009, 10:09:52 pm
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.You're right. I was frightened by early eagle eye against my unupgraded shriekers, but then i remembered that cpu will target my upgraded ones first, not killing them, giving me one turn to burrow! :D i think i'll play sword+tower
Post by: turin on December 15, 2009, 10:09:52 pm
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)
Post by: Uncle Jellyfish on December 15, 2009, 10:09:52 pm
I narrowly beat a crappier version of this in PvP...>.< Sundial saved my ass...=/
Post by: Uncle Jellyfish on December 15, 2009, 10:09:52 pm
Btw, i took away antlion and sword and got 2 unupgraded (=cheaper) shields, useful if you've not so much creatures upgradedBS = Bullsh*t
EDIT: btw, what BS means?
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.
Post by: Dragoon on December 15, 2009, 10:09:53 pm
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.
Post by: joob on December 15, 2009, 10:09:53 pm
Drop the antlion and add the gnome imoGnomes 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.
Post by: Scaredgirl on December 15, 2009, 10:09:53 pm
And I only meant to correct you in something you said as a "fact". Like what you are doing in that highlighted part AGAIN. :)Drop the antlion and add the gnome imoYep, 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... :D
Mono fire with a good start is faster. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a mathematical FACT.
Post by: Scaredgirl on December 15, 2009, 10:09:53 pm
I personally would have more fun with this argument if you made more sense.:S Again! Well you could tell me before because that part has been there all the time, from the beginning.And I only meant to correct you in something you said as a "fact". Like what you are doing in that highlighted part AGAIN. :)Drop the antlion and add the gnome imoYep, 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... :D
Mono fire with a good start is faster. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a mathematical FACT.
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 :D
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. :)
(http://graphjam.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/song-chart-memes-keeping-job.jpg)
Post by: turin on December 15, 2009, 10:09:53 pm
Drop the antlion and add the gnome imoYep, 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... :D
Post by: turin on December 15, 2009, 10:09:53 pm
:S Again! Well you could tell me before because that part has been there all the time, from the beginning.And I only meant to correct you in something you said as a "fact". Like what you are doing in that highlighted part AGAIN. :)Drop the antlion and add the gnome imoYep, 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... :D
Mono fire with a good start is faster. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a mathematical FACT.
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 :D
Post by: vice123 on December 15, 2009, 10:09:53 pm
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.
Post by: Dragoon on December 15, 2009, 10:09:54 pm
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...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.
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)
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. :)
Post by: Scaredgirl on December 15, 2009, 10:09:54 pm
Supposing you start you leave the most effective cases :those starting with 1 card more!Hmm. I missed that not-so-smart comment the first time.
Seems you argued to get the right, not to discover truth ;)
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.
Post by: turin on December 15, 2009, 10:09:54 pm
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.Supposing you start you leave the most effective cases :those starting with 1 card more!Hmm. I missed that not-so-smart comment the first time.
Seems you argued to get the right, not to discover truth ;)
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.
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 ;)
Post by: Scaredgirl on December 15, 2009, 10:09:55 pm
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.You know this "argument" is pretty funny. :)
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 ;)
Let me do a recap on what has happened so far:
1. You started this thread and claimed that the situation in the picture you posted is a "typical start".
2. I had played this deck before so I knew what you said was false and I corrected you.
3. You admitted that it's not a "typical start" but you then changed it to "quite common".
4. I gave you mathematical PROOF that the situation in that picture is actually very UNCOMMON.
5. Then 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".
6. Again, I gave you mathematical PROOF that both decks are about as equally fast.
7. Then you start talking about 7/8 card starts which is totally off-topic since we were talking about the situation in that one picture.
8. In your latest post you totally change what you said earlier so I'm not even going to reply to that.
So you see so far all these things you have said have been untrue and every time I give proof of that, you keep changing what you said.
This would have been much easier to both of us if you had only admitted that you were wrong, changed that comment, and moved on.
The aggressive and delusional way you defend what you said about this deck, makes me realize that your goal is not to seek the true effectiveness of this deck. Your goal is to try to make it seem better than it actually is, which is something I really don't understand.
Post by: turin on December 15, 2009, 10:09:56 pm
Well, i must admit i made a lot of confusion, but the problem is that my first wrong post was there just to say my deck was faster tha mono-red. But the particular situation was wrong. Then we started talking about details like 3 turn starts and many other things, and we both wrote wrong things sometimes (your matematical proof wasnt so mathematical and quite useless as a proof, my sentences like "quite common" were wrong and so on), so i had the right to say you were wrong and you had it too to say it to me.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.You know this "argument" is pretty funny. :)
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 ;)
Let me do a recap on what has happened so far:
1. You started this thread and claimed that the situation in the picture you posted is a "typical start".
2. I had played this deck before so I knew what you said was false and I corrected you.
3. You admitted that it's not a "typical start" but you then changed it to "quite common".
4. I gave you mathematical PROOF that the situation in that picture is actually very UNCOMMON.
5. Then 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".
6. Again, I gave you mathematical PROOF that both decks are about as equally fast.
7. Then you start talking about 7/8 card starts which is totally off-topic since we were talking about the situation in that one picture.
8. In your latest post you totally change what you said earlier so I'm not even going to reply to that.
So you see so far all these things you have said have been untrue and every time I give proof of that, you keep changing what you said.
This would have been much easier to both of us if you had only admitted that you were wrong, changed that comment, and moved on.
The aggressive and delusional way you defend what you said about this deck, makes me realize that your goal is not to seek the true effectiveness of this deck. Your goal is to try to make it seem better than it actually is, which is something I really don't understand.
In the end we came up to nothing, exept that in the chival's mono red replies someone said he tried a computer simulation of both decks and mine was slightly better, but i must say that's so few the difference that maybe having to use evolve on graboids make the situation a tie.
So it seems we have more or less same speed decks. I continue to like mine more because of his 0% losses against AI3 and because probably there's no faster deck against ai3 by now.
Post by: Terroking on December 15, 2009, 10:10:02 pm
lets not forget how f***ed up you are if the gravity AI gets an oty out when you have no lances
This deck has no such glaring errors, except for RT which slows down both decks drasticly, but mono-fire usually worse
Post by: vice123 on December 15, 2009, 10:10:02 pm
I think the earth/time deck is (slightly) better than mono fire at farming lvl3. Both are ridiculously fast, but shriekers are a bit more durable.
Post by: shunkai on December 15, 2009, 10:10:30 pm
i'm using an unupgraded version of this and does really good
with the unupgraded version my stats are
W:19 W2
i've even played against rainbow and beat it (with prefect timing)[this was pvp and i'm been playing pvp with this)
all i had to do was have 5 grabiods and waited until the right time (due to elite otyugh) and pulled out 10 shrieks in a turn and knocked out almost all of the other players hp and killed him next turn :P
Post by: sillyking14 on December 15, 2009, 10:10:30 pm
yeah i think that earth/time is better since its not entirely dependant on speed, for example if someone plays a phase shield, your creatures aren't stuck in the open waiting to get removed, you can burrow them and wait for the shield to go away. and you are similarly not stuck by an otyguh. you can burrow (which cuts damage in half) wait a few turns until the damage you would do after unburrowing is greater than opponents life then simply unburrow and crush 'em.
i guess what im trying to say is that the deck isn't slower (at least based on what i've read) and its more versatile which makes it preferred (to me).
Post by: Parma on December 18, 2009, 06:54:38 pm
I use an unupgraded version on my account to Grind AI3 Mindlessly, although I don't really like using it in PvP just because in PvP the speed decks can be shut down so easily when someone has a nice drawing hand and can play a few sundials before getting shields up.
Although because AI 3 never (At least from memory) Use phase shields and such I use 18 Towers, 6 Graboid, 6 Shrieker. Never anything to really worry about with AI3 except for the occasional time when I get low draw in towers at the start, and Otyugh doesn't really bother you because well it can't eat you unless it gets momentum or something. Although I prefer not to burrow Shriekers anymore just because there isn't any point really. Unless you have had a bad draw.
No real reason why I prefer it over MonoFire seeing as this deck can have issues with Devourer's on AI 3 but.. Yea, I am just much more accustomed to using this.
Post by: Belthus on December 19, 2009, 01:09:24 am
Post by: sillyking14 on December 20, 2009, 03:51:50 am
and besides this deck would also work for rarefarming in the t50.
Post by: jmdt on August 25, 2010, 07:48:28 am
Post by: Dragoon on August 25, 2010, 12:09:09 pm
The original shrieker rush. I had to dig pretty hard to find this guy.Wow, you really were digging hard. :)
I remember turin and this thread. Good times.
Post by: Daytripper on August 25, 2010, 12:52:30 pm
I do not enjoy using 6 shriekers because they cost too much. (Dutch, I know.)
I like the 6 graboids and 3 shriekers, but then I probably want to add a few golems or even earthquakes. (Earthquakes can barely make your deck worse ever. :P)
Also terribly funny is 6 graboids, 6 golems and 6 antlions and 12 pillars! (upped) Usually you START with 1 or 2 attackers on the very first turn. It gives you 6 x 10 = 60 attack, + 6 x 6 = 36, and plus 6 x 4 = 24. Total of 60 + 36 + 24 = 120
Cost = 6 x 4, 6 x 4, 6 x 2 = 24 + 24 + 12 = 60.
120 : 60 = 2 attack per quant.
Getting stuck happens very rarely, at least you will have a handful in the field before someone gets to you. I've been using it as a variation on my 10 attackers + 9 spells deck (usually quakes/blood/rewind) and it's just fun, though my balanced deck is safer.
Post by: Toimu13 on September 24, 2010, 02:31:59 am
Post by: rangasheep on December 22, 2010, 11:54:39 am
Post by: deluxeloy on January 04, 2011, 09:01:02 pm
Post by: TheIdioticIdiot on January 05, 2011, 12:38:01 am
Post by: SickTanicK on February 05, 2011, 07:26:41 am
Post by: MajorBDog on March 08, 2011, 08:32:17 pm
Post by: MasterNighthawk on November 15, 2011, 06:19:57 pm
my question is sort of connected to the upgraded version of the following (posted by jmizzle7 in Deckbuilding 101):
(http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/7883/earthgrinder.jpg)
... and since this one is fairly simmilar to that, just upped, i'd like to know if anyone has experience playing it against half bloods.
is it worth putting my coins into upgrading these cards?
Post by: ralouf on November 15, 2011, 06:24:56 pm
Post by: MasterNighthawk on November 15, 2011, 06:48:26 pm