[OUTDATED] Turns to win study

[Scaredgirl]

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

Well, if you want to debate about that, then we might as well have a 3 hour debate on what day it is.

More clicking is more clicking. And more clicking means more time. Unless you have a way of getting your cursor in three places at the same time, multiple clicks will take more time than only one click. What is there to debate about?

"Three clicks takes longer than one click".
"No! They take the same amount of time!"
"How can they take the same amount of time when you have to click 3 times as much and wait for the animation?"
"I'm a fast clicker!"

Only question is: how much does this extra clicking slow you down? Sure it's not much when you look at only one match, but those seconds do add up.

[guolin]

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

Well, if you want to debate about that, then we might as well have a 3 hour debate on what day it is.

More clicking is more clicking. And more clicking means more time. Unless you have a way of getting your cursor in three places at the same time, multiple clicks will take more time than only one click. What is there to debate about?

"Three clicks takes longer than one click".
"No! They take the same amount of time!"
"How can they take the same amount of time when you have to click 3 times as much and wait for the animation?"
"I'm a fast clicker!"

Only question is: how much does this extra clicking slow you down? Sure it's not much when you look at only one match, but those seconds do add up.

Clicking takes no more than 10 seconds per turn, usually. You must also take note that No Land Stompy uses no pillars. Instead, it uses Novas and Immolations (Immolation takes a little longer because of the dang animation), which roughly amounts to the same clicking time as clicking the stone pillars in a Shrieker Rush. Lycanthrope is similar to an Evolve. Growth is the main culprit here, but that only takes a two seconds, tops, if you manage to even have the earth quanta.

So yeah, it'd probably take two-three seconds longer per turn, give or take. Some other rush decks, like pegasi rush, may even take longer, though still not by much. Others, like Death rush, may take less time since you don't have any activated abilities, but again, those really take only two-three seconds, tops?

[jmdt]

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.

Wow, I missed a pretty heated discussionm, lol.  Scaredgirl got it right, I count turns because its a much easier method for doing this.  I can do a few games here and there between working on my research, talk on the kongregate chat, browse the forum, prop my feet up, and have a nice beverage.  However when I'm time testing, it's all business for whatever period I choose; usually 50 games which comes out to approximately an hour or a little more.

I've had plans for a while to do a follow up post with a series of time based statistics for several of the faster or more important decks, nut haven't yet found the time to do it.  I have some statistics already and once I get the ones I want, I will post time-based statistics in a separate thread.

The study started out of my curiosity of if my life rush or shrieker rush was a faster deck for AI3 grinding and has expanded into directions I didn't realize it would and taught me a great deal behind game mechanics and deck building.  Along the way we came up with a few new decks using the principles we learned that were faster than previous incarnations.  The mono death deck that has became a popular noobie deck, the V2 fire rush which is arguably the fastest consistant deck in the game, and the mono life speed EM deck, a concept that used to be an oxymoron, are direct results from the knowlege gained from the testing that has went into this study.

This turns to win study isn't all about electrum gained per hour.  Honestly if you are seriously interested in electrum, a good false god grinding deck is a much better option.  The more important aspect of this exercise is score per hour and slightly less important wins per hour.  You can gain score 2-3 times faster grinding AI3 with a good deck than you can with a fg deck for my basic testing.  If you get a speed EM deck you can raise your score even more in that time period.  If you're concerned with wins, there are decks that are faster that can pop out a win in less than a minute.

Sorry for the long post, but lots to respond to.

[jmdt]

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

Thanks for testing my deck ratchet, I know how long 200 results takes (takes me about 5 hours straight when I'm on my game, lol).  I'm still surprised my deck can get a 6.41 ttw and a 70% EM rate EM rate at the same time, but the result speak for themselves.

[bucky1andonly]

ems for ai3 is 40 electrum
ems for t50 is 60 electrum

now if youre not worried about the spins, thats fine, means you want score, even spinning ai3 is good if you want money, but t50 would be best overall due to the farms, which means auto em + chance at a rare

[jmdt]

ems for ai3 is 40 electrum
ems for t50 is 60 electrum

now if youre not worried about the spins, thats fine, means you want score, even spinning ai3 is good if you want money, but t50 would be best overall due to the farms, which means auto em + chance at a rare

Just to repeat...you play AI3 for score/wins not for electrum.  Although you can make decent electrum from AI3 over time, t50 and the fg's are really much better places to go for electrum.

[guolin]

ems for ai3 is 40 electrum
ems for t50 is 60 electrum

now if youre not worried about the spins, thats fine, means you want score, even spinning ai3 is good if you want money, but t50 would be best overall due to the farms, which means auto em + chance at a rare

Also, if you already have plenty of that rare, you can sell it for ~150-250 electrum, which is certainly. However, I usually only find it profitable at night.

[CB!]

Might I suggest that when the 'time to win' study happens that 'clicks per turn' be used to record the time?  As such things as low/high quality, CPU speed, individual clicking speed can affect a strictly time test.  And clicks per turn is more objective...

[ratchetspyro94]

Might I suggest that when the 'time to win' study happens that 'clicks per turn' be used to record the time?  As such things as low/high quality, CPU speed, individual clicking speed can affect a strictly time test.  And clicks per turn is more objective...

So add up how many times you clicked that game then divide by how many turns you took?

[jmdt]

Might I suggest that when the 'time to win' study happens that 'clicks per turn' be used to record the time?  As such things as low/high quality, CPU speed, individual clicking speed can affect a strictly time test.  And clicks per turn is more objective...

I see where you're going and this would be an interesting study.  What I'd probably have to do is take 2 separate runs with the deck over 50 games each.  1 based solely on time were I play 50 games straight and record score, electrum and time before and after, and a second were I recorded clicks per turn or game.

Having turns to win, score and electrum per time, and clicks per game would be telling stats about the efficiency of the fastest rush decks.  When I finish updating most of the faster decks for 200 wins, which will take a few weeks, this will be my next project.

[ratchetspyro94]

Might I suggest that when the 'time to win' study happens that 'clicks per turn' be used to record the time?  As such things as low/high quality, CPU speed, individual clicking speed can affect a strictly time test.  And clicks per turn is more objective...

I see where you're going and this would be an interesting study.  What I'd probably have to do is take 2 separate runs with the deck over 50 games each.  1 based solely on time were I play 50 games straight and record score, electrum and time before and after, and a second were I recorded clicks per turn or game.

Having turns to win, score and electrum per time, and clicks per game would be telling stats about the efficiency of the fastest rush decks.  When I finish updating most of the faster decks for 200 wins, which will take a few weeks, this will be my next project.

  More work for us 

[CB!]

Might I suggest that when the 'time to win' study happens that 'clicks per turn' be used to record the time?  As such things as low/high quality, CPU speed, individual clicking speed can affect a strictly time test.  And clicks per turn is more objective...

I see where you're going and this would be an interesting study.  What I'd probably have to do is take 2 separate runs with the deck over 50 games each.  1 based solely on time were I play 50 games straight and record score, electrum and time before and after, and a second were I recorded clicks per turn or game.

Having turns to win, score and electrum per time, and clicks per game would be telling stats about the efficiency of the fastest rush decks.  When I finish updating most of the faster decks for 200 wins, which will take a few weeks, this will be my next project.

*waits for jmdt's wins to hit 20,000*