[OUTDATED] Turns to win study

[ratchetspyro94]

It's not possible, even if he somehow got all of those things out first turn, thats only 26 dmg, and that takes 4 turns.

Yeah, I made that deck.  4 turns is the absolute floor on a perfect draw.

What's a perfect draw for it? 4 towers, 3 frogs, 1 sword?  That's about the only way I can come up with a 4 turn win....

I'm actually starting to wonder if 4 is possible with this build.  I haven't actually gotten one, but have been told they happen.  Assuming 3 towers, 4 frogs, 1 sword: You could play sword and frog turn 1, 2 frogs turn 2, 2 frogs turn 3 and a frog or cockatrice turn 4.  The damage total would be 11 + 21 + 31 + 36 = 99.  If someone finds a 4 turn kill let me know how.  Either way, its still faster than the traditional upped adrenaline rush, as its max damage potential in 4 turns is 96.  I may have to do more testing with this deck, lol.

4 towers
3 frogs
1 sword

4
play frog (-2 , 2 remaining)
play sword (-1 , 1 remaining)
11 damage
generate 5 (6 remaining)
draw frog
play 3 frogs (-6 , 0 remaining)
26 damage (37 total)
generate 5 (5 remaining)
draw frog (or cockatrice)
play 1 frog (-2 , 3 remaining)
31 damage (68 total)
generate 5 (8 remaining)
draw frog (or cockatrice)
play 1 frog (-2 , 6 remaining)
36 damage (104 total)

Thanks, jmdt will surly appreciate this. And others will also.

[jmdt]

It's not possible, even if he somehow got all of those things out first turn, thats only 26 dmg, and that takes 4 turns.

Yeah, I made that deck.  4 turns is the absolute floor on a perfect draw.

What's a perfect draw for it? 4 towers, 3 frogs, 1 sword?  That's about the only way I can come up with a 4 turn win....

I'm actually starting to wonder if 4 is possible with this build.  I haven't actually gotten one, but have been told they happen.  Assuming 3 towers, 4 frogs, 1 sword: You could play sword and frog turn 1, 2 frogs turn 2, 2 frogs turn 3 and a frog or cockatrice turn 4.  The damage total would be 11 + 21 + 31 + 36 = 99.  If someone finds a 4 turn kill let me know how.  Either way, its still faster than the traditional upped adrenaline rush, as its max damage potential in 4 turns is 96.  I may have to do more testing with this deck, lol.

4 towers
3 frogs
1 sword

4
play frog (-2 , 2 remaining)
play sword (-1 , 1 remaining)
11 damage
generate 5 (6 remaining)
draw frog
play 3 frogs (-6 , 0 remaining)
26 damage (37 total)
generate 5 (5 remaining)
draw frog (or cockatrice)
play 1 frog (-2 , 3 remaining)
31 damage (68 total)
generate 5 (8 remaining)
draw frog (or cockatrice)
play 1 frog (-2 , 6 remaining)
36 damage (104 total)
 

you win CB!   I knew it could hit 4 turns somehow.

[Scaredgirl]

Pretty cool data. There's one slight problem though.. "turns to win" shouldn't be the variable here. If we wanted to make this scientific, it should be "time to win", because that's what the pro grinders are interested in. Nobody cares how many turns it takes to win, we only care how much time it takes to win.

Of course usually "turns to win" and "time to win" are pretty much the same, but some decks require more clicking and thinking, making your turn last slightly longer, making the overall "time to win" longer.

So what I'm trying to say is that some decks might take one extra turn to win compared to others, but still be faster because there's less clicking involved. It's not a big deal but certainly something that should be taken into consideration.

[jplar523]

@scaredgirl: you're right when one grinds ai3, but in t50 turns are important, cause they let you win against other rushes. personally i would've lost lots of games if i didn't use a "clicky" lava golem rush
long story short, time to win matters in ai3, ttw in t50

[kobisjeruk]

Of course usually "turns to win" and "time to win" are pretty much the same, but some decks require more clicking and thinking, making your turn last slightly longer, making the overall "time to win" longer.

unnecessary because most decks in the study dont require too many clicks or thinking as opposed to anti-FG decks
you can see for yourself most of the decks dont interact with the opponent's deck/threat and while there are some active abilities such as growth/dive/deja-vu/burrowed, you'll activate them as long as you have the required quanta and as often as you could anyway

and exactly who are these pro grinders you're talking about anyway? i'd consider jmdt as the pro-est of them all seeing how many fights hes done for the studies and he seems to care (a bit too much imo) for turns to win instead of time to win

[10 men]

Pretty cool data. There's one slight problem though.. "turns to win" shouldn't be the variable here. If we wanted to make this scientific, it should be "time to win", because that's what the pro grinders are interested in. Nobody cares how many turns it takes to win, we only care how much time it takes to win.

Nah, what I really care about is score/time. Most awesome deck itt is the mono life speed mastery deck, not because it's fast, but because it often wins with mastery and therefore gives the most score. The best format for this would be the AI3 Farming Challenge (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,1874.msg19198#msg19198), but people got angry when I posted an upgraded deck there. 

[Scaredgirl]

When we are talking about real pro grinding (in any game), there are only two things to consider:

1. Time spent
2. Money earned

Everything else is irrelevant.

Amount of turns, amount of EM's, wins/losses.. all that is 100% irrelevant. All we need to look at is time and money, because the system that gives you the best effectiveness (money divided by time) is the best system. Period.

The point I was trying to make was that if we want to find the best grinder, we cannot simply count the number of turns. Number of turns doesn't always = speed. If a deck has a slightly lower turns-to-win average, but requires much less clicking, that deck is faster to play, which means more revenue for you.

For example if you look at the results so far. #2 has a slightly lower ttw than #1 BUT #2 requires much less clicking. Original post says that #1 is faster but I would disagree. When you do some serious grinding with 100+ matches, those extra clicks you have to do will slow you down.

Lets say extra clicking slows you down 2 seconds per match. When you fight 100 matches, that's 200 seconds which is over 3 minutes. During that time a deck that requires less clicking will fight multiple matches, gaining revenue. And that 2 seconds was just a guess. It might be a lot more than that depending on the deck and the player.

[guolin]

Just saying, though, turns to win is a lot easier to record than time to win. Some players, like Jmdt and I, can blitz through games subconciously - clicks don't even last a second. Other players might take longer. Even then, sometimes I don't feel like blitzing, and just want to play casually. Turns to win is the best guideline we can have at this moment. How every player use it - blitz or not - is their problem.

[Scaredgirl]

Just saying, though, turns to win is a lot easier to record than time to win.

Yes, of course. Counting the turns is hands down the best way to collect data because time would be very difficult to record, and that data would be useless if multiple people recorded time because some people are faster than others.

I was just saying that if we wanted this method to be more "perfect", the clicking speed would have to be taken into consideration because it's a big part of grinding effectiveness. Like I said before, I'm pretty sure that #2 is faster than #1 even though it has a lower ttw.

Some players, like Jmdt and I, can blitz through games subconciously - clicks don't even last a second.

It's not always a matter of who is the fastest clicker because everyone has to wait for those animations to end. Also you don't compare your fast clicking to some casual players slow clicking, you compare your fast clicking to your fast clicking using a different deck that requires even less clicking.

Click.

[guolin]

Just saying, though, turns to win is a lot easier to record than time to win.

Yes, of course. Counting the turns is hands down the best way to collect data because time would be very difficult to record, and that data would be useless if multiple people recorded time because some people are faster than others.

I was just saying that if we wanted this method to be more "perfect", the clicking speed would have to be taken into consideration because it's a big part of grinding effectiveness. Like I said before, I'm pretty sure that #2 is faster than #1 even though it has a lower ttw.

Some players, like Jmdt and I, can blitz through games subconciously - clicks don't even last a second.

It's not always a matter of who is the fastest clicker because everyone has to wait for those animations to end. Also you don't compare your fast clicking to some casual players slow clicking, you compare your fast clicking to your fast clicking using a different deck that requires even less clicking.

Click.

Low Quality much?

I won't get into a debate with you, though, because I know both of us are stubborn people that won't back down.

[ratchetspyro94]

Finally got the statistics done with the statistics it took me 2 weeks to do it cause I had stuff to do. 

Code: [Select]

6rk 6rk 7ac 7ac 7ac 7ac 7ac 7ac 7ac 7ac 7ac 7ac 7ae 7ae 7ae 7ae 7ae 7ae 7ag 7ag 7ag 7ag 7ag 7ag 7ai 7ai 7ai 7ai 7ai 7aittw 4 - 5
ttw 5 - 45
ttw 6 - 70
ttw 7 - 49
ttw 8 - 14
ttw 9 - 13
ttw 10 - 1
ttw 11 - 2
ttw 13 - 1

100 games  ttw: 6.18  EM: 74
150 games  ttw: 6.72  EM: 108
200 games  ttw: 6.41  Em: 140

[ratchetspyro94]

Just saying, though, turns to win is a lot easier to record than time to win.

Yes, of course. Counting the turns is hands down the best way to collect data because time would be very difficult to record, and that data would be useless if multiple people recorded time because some people are faster than others.

I was just saying that if we wanted this method to be more "perfect", the clicking speed would have to be taken into consideration because it's a big part of grinding effectiveness. Like I said before, I'm pretty sure that #2 is faster than #1 even though it has a lower ttw.

Some players, like Jmdt and I, can blitz through games subconciously - clicks don't even last a second.

It's not always a matter of who is the fastest clicker because everyone has to wait for those animations to end. Also you don't compare your fast clicking to some casual players slow clicking, you compare your fast clicking to your fast clicking using a different deck that requires even less clicking.

Click.

Low Quality much?

I won't get into a debate with you, though, because I know both of us are stubborn people that won't back down.

  True people are sometimes stubborn.