Using Quanta Index to determine the optimal number of Pillars in a deck

[UTAlan]

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.

Good idea. (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,24433.msg333599.html) 

[BluePriest]

Some people live and die by QI. Others brush it aside like it is insignificant. the problem with it, is that it is only good for rushes. Ironically the deck you provided is the worst deck to use QI for since the whole point of it is to stall long enough to destroy your opponent.

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

[Jangoo]

Good idea. (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,24433.msg333599.html) 

An Error Has Occurred!
The topic or board you are looking for appears to be either missing or off limits to you.

Huh  ??? ?


Also, make sure you sign up for THIS (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,24362.msg333609.html#new) once it gets going. 

[Scaredgirl]

I merged the two topics. No need to have discussion about the same thing in two separate places.

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.

[UTAlan]

I merged the two topics. No need to have discussion about the same thing in two separate places.

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.

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.

[vidurkhanna]

so wats better a high QI or a low QI??

[omegareaper7]

for rushes, lower is better, for stalls, higher can work.

[Jangoo]

for rushes, lower is better, for stalls, higher can work.

Lower or higher than the "optimal" QI 5 that is.

[alka]

Thanks SG! You have helped me again.

[silux]

Putting the right nimber of pillars in a deck isn't a guess...
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

[10 men]

I'd like to point out a few things:

- Immo/Crema is a spell that cost -7/-9  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.

[UTAlan]

I'd like to point out a few things:

- Immo/Crema is a spell that cost -7/-9  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.

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 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.