[OUTDATED] Turns to win study

[hrmmm]

Pretty cool data.

thanks -- i hope more datas are coming soon (im working on it and no im not jmdt )

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.

i think there is no way to make this "sientific" because every data is collected and postet by players -- means there is no objectiv observer, you have to decide to trust a data or not.
(i was searching for stats-script. didnt found anything that would work for this-- if someone have the skills/time or knowledge of a stats-script/programm for this propose, he could have a "2-month-choose-your-t50-farm-ticket")

also this thread should be more then just a way to find the best ai3-grind deck. its actually a survey of speedy decks.
if you look at the spreading of the ttw you have also a idea how vulnerable a deck is to bad draws and moderate cc.

Nobody cares how many turns it takes to win, we only care how much time it takes to win.

turns to win can be interresting for every pvp-rush or for t50 decks. also you have a premonition of the consistent of a deck (e.g. compare details for unupgraded light and death rushes) -- data that can be usefull for more then ai3 grinding .

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...

not gonna happen that i count every click. of corse i would be interested in the results (and in all the  "argh", &%"#! and **** recorded on my little spy micro )

[CB!]

I agree with the arguments both ways...   I think as far as a turns to win study, the work jmdt (and others) have done is sufficient.  But there is something to be said for how involved a deck is as well as the overall speed.  If you're mindlessly grinding AI3 for score while your watching a movie, you just want to click all the highlighted/playable cards and press space.  A clicks-per-turn+turns-to-win study would give you the best deck for that.  But on the flip side, it is rather picky/hardcore to shave off enough time per game to allow you 2-3 more games in a hour.

EDIT:  I've written a few automation scripts with autohotkey... I'll see if I can do anything with it...

[kobisjeruk]

Counting clicks is borderline insane.

this. a hundred times this^

i thought CB! was mocking SG about the whole 'time to win' instead of 'turns to win' with the attention to details (e.g. CPU speed, user click speed) because at least to me, SG is being nitpicky
but then people started getting serious about doing another study with counting clicks and whatnot. rufkme?
only kevkev share my thoughts it seems...

[CB!]

Counting clicks is borderline insane.

this. a hundred times this^

i thought CB! was mocking SG about the whole 'time to win' instead of 'turns to win' with the attention to details (e.g. CPU speed, user click speed) because at least to me, SG is being nitpicky
but then people started getting serious about doing another study with counting clicks and whatnot. rufkme?
only kevkev share my thoughts it seems...

I know better than that...

[jmdt]

Stats updated for my life rush v2.  Most decks slow down after further testing, but this deck actually sped up from the first 50 games I tested

Just to show how much the stats can change after a few games:
50: 6.120 ttw 100: 6.366 ttw 150: 5.730 ttw 200: 5.644 ttw

ttw: 5.965

losses: 1

ttw4: 2
ttw5: 62
ttw6: 76
ttw7: 39
ttw8: 8
ttw9: 5
ttw10: 2
ttw11: 1

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 7an 7an 7an 7an 7an 7anMore updated stats to come.

[bucky1andonly]

you only have 195 games plus 1 loss for 196
and the ttw for those is 6.087
i think you're losing your mind and should take a break from testing

[ratchetspyro94]

     8)  I live off this post. 

[jmdt]

you only have 195 games plus 1 loss for 196
and the ttw for those is 6.087
i think you're losing your mind and should take a break from testing

I may have typed the numbers in the post incorrect

I triple checked my numbers and I definately had 200 games and the ttw is definately 5.965.

I agree with you though, I could definately take a break from testing for a bit.  I've gotten to the point where I count with fingers (and sometimes toes) to make sure I have the correct numbers.

[guolin]

you only have 195 games plus 1 loss for 196
and the ttw for those is 6.087
i think you're losing your mind and should take a break from testing

I may have typed the numbers in the post incorrect

I triple checked my numbers and I definately had 200 games and the ttw is definately 5.965.

I agree with you though, I could definately take a break from testing for a bit.  I've gotten to the point where I count with fingers (and sometimes toes) to make sure I have the correct numbers.

Someone needs fresh air.

[ratchetspyro94]

you only have 195 games plus 1 loss for 196
and the ttw for those is 6.087
i think you're losing your mind and should take a break from testing

I may have typed the numbers in the post incorrect

I triple checked my numbers and I definately had 200 games and the ttw is definately 5.965.

I agree with you though, I could definately take a break from testing for a bit.  I've gotten to the point where I count with fingers (and sometimes toes) to make sure I have the correct numbers.

Someone needs fresh air.

I feel like doing statistics on the fire rush.  He does need fresh  tho. 

[hrmmm]

tested Mono-Earth Shrieker Rush - Posted by Fragmentation

avg ttw: 5.83 (200 games)

em: 2
losses: 2

ttw 4: 1
ttw 5: 86
ttw 6: 78
ttw 7: 21
ttw 8: 8
ttw 9: 1
ttw 10: 1
ttw 11: 2

ttw for 50 games each: 6.00 -- 5.86 -- 5.74 -- 5.71

Code: [Select]

6rk 778 778 778 778 778 778 778 778 778 778 778 778 778 778 778 778 778 77g 77g 77g 77g 77g 77g 77h 77h 77h 77h 77h 77him surprised about the speed of this deck.
i always thought i was lucky with my draws, because more then half of the deck are pillars. but 17 seems a good amount - i hardly had too much pillars on no creatures in my hand.
if i had.... :
... he managed to play another dragon, my first shrieker on turn 7 came too late -.-

[jmdt]

Updated Crusade of the Pegasii for 200 games.  I was surprised the deck wasn't faster, but reverse time and gravity shield put a serious hamper on this deck.  Either way its one of the more fun decks I've tested.

avg ttw: 6.572

losses: 6

ttw 5: 33
ttw 6: 82
ttw 7: 43
ttw 8: 25
ttw 9: 2
ttw 10: 3
ttw 11: 4
ttw 12: 1
ttw 13: 1

Code: [Select]

7jv 7jo 7jo 7jo 7jo 7jo 7jo 7jo 7jo 7jo 7jo 7jo 7jo 7jo 7jo 7jr 7jr 7jr 7jr 7jr 7jr 7ju 7ju 7jv 7jv 7jv 7jv 7jv 7k1 7k2