[Poll]How do you define a "deck" ?

[Shylderidh]

It's a question, I'm often asking to myself when I see decks, or envision to post decks or variants.

What exactly defines a deck, different enough from others to desserve being posted, and to be called a deck rather than a variant ?

The first definition, an exact list of card, would mean any combination of cards would desserve to be posted as a different deck, even if the idea they use are the same than in thousands of other decks.

The second would mean, an awful lot of decks actually being posted, shouldn't, as they are just variants based on the same synergy (ie : vultures and death effects), with the proportion or number of key cards changing, and different secondary ones. The problem with this approach is say most speedbows are based on the synergy between supernovae and low cost cards, most immo rushes based on the synergy between 0 cost creatures and cremation, etc... so shouldn't desserve to be considered different decks.

The third say decks using the same concept are different enough if they use different elements. For example, my different variants of rushed stale (see in rainbow forum), each using a different mark, and cards of this color, would be considered different decks even if they all use the same synergy between bone wall and immolation  ; and speedbows would be considered different decks if they use different colors of creatures.

The second and third answer, also mean that deck should have a concept and exploit a synergy to be worth this name, eliminating purely adaptative decks (ie : a deck just being an addition of efficient cards, with no particular synergy between them ; like many rainbows I see in PvP1, carrying a little of everything to adapt to the opponent more than having their own particular strategy).

So the fourth answer remove the need of a "concept" or "exploited synergy" from deck definition. And define the deck by its goal say "deck to win in pvp1" or "deck to beat half blood" ; then considering no particular synergy has to be used, I included in the answer that this list of cards / their proportions haven't to be precise, changing 1/4 not really changing the deck enough for it to desserve another name.

Option 5, define a deck as a list of key cards and their proportion (with the author saying which are the key cards, then eventually giving variants for how to fill the remaining space). But if the proportion of those key cards change (say if you take just 2 fractal / 30 cards  in a deck defined as a fractal deck and supposed to have 4/30), it's no longer a variant but a different deck.

Last answer is a more restrictive variant of answer 2 or 3. Even if the same mechanic synergy is exploited a deck is considered different enough if it uses different cards for this synergy (for example an immo deck using sparks is considered different than the same kind of deck immolating photons ; a deck based on freeze/shocwave combo is different if it uses squids instead than freeze spells, etc...).

[KeeperofDreams]

For this game almost but not quite the first option.  One card difference can have a huge impact in the odds.  Also this game has rainbows in which the choice of one or two cards can have a dramatic effect on the capabilities of the deck.  For this a deck is almost the full card list.  However, if a take Instosis for example, and use unupped instead of upped sundials and add a tower, it's still in effect Instosis main concept is what defines it.  This odd almost contradictory state, shows the lack of robustness in the cards and their capabilities, ultimately the immaturity of this game.  (The game is still great despite it's relative immaturity for a ccg in general; for the free online ones, it's one of the best don't get me wrong.) 

So at this time, I would say one distinct card changes per ten cards regardless of it's concept, is a different deck, and assuming the concept is already defined it can be called a variant of a main concept deck.

[furballdn]

Probably concept and synergy. Any deck using firefly queens as its main purpose is a FFQ deck.

[RootRanger]

A deck is an exact list of cards. A change to a deck changes how it plays and changes its results against other decks. For example, adding 1 Fractal to an upgraded speedbow significantly improves its odds against Firestall. And adding 1 Reflective Shield to a Firestall significantly improves its odds against a deckout with reflective shields.

The first definition, an exact list of card, would mean any combination of cards would desserve to be posted as a different deck, even if the idea they use are the same than in thousands of other decks.

This is using the flawed assumption that every "deck" needs to be posted. Outside of events and competitions, the only decks that should be posted are effective AI farmers and troll/joke decks. When every single newb that ever comes up with a deck idea posts a deck, it becomes nearly impossible for someone to use an effective deck type (deck type, not deck) that has not been posted before. This also causes people to believe the highly flawed idea that someone can create a deck type such as Firestall or GotP/Nightmare just because they are the first to post it.

[Shylderidh]

My question was how do you define a deck that desserve to be called a deck rather than being called "variant of...", not do you prefer to see only x or y kind of decks posted (personnaly I'm happy that efficiency, especially against exploitables AI, isn't the main criteria, out of "easy decks for succeeding in task x" lists ; for me the interest of forum decks is their eventual original ideas/combos that may be used, with their exact composition or another - I don't mean that bad decks should be posted, but I wouldn't see the interest to see posted as different decks non original decks having as only quality to succeed 1% more often or 5% faster than a very similar other, it may be a better variant but it's still a variant)

But after reflexion I voted option 5 anyway. Even if two decks use the same synergies/ideas, the proportion of the key cards is what makes the biggest difference, a deck having 3/10 cards x and 1/10 cards y won't behave the same as a deck having 3/10 of each. Now depending of the deck concept, key cards may be 50%, 80% or 100% of the cards, and the eventual problem I see with the actual format (posting complete decks instead of a list of key cards + options) is you need some experience of the deck to identify the keys (and be able to say if another deck should be considered a variant or is different enough).

[tempalt3]

Why are you doing this anyways

[Acsabi44]

The way the deck plays defines it IMO.

A PSN bow is a PSN bow regardless of what different players tend to play in it. (CPs, Chargers, Graboid-Golem etc etc. All are the same deck IMO, just fine-tuned towards the metagame/personal preferences.)

A mono aether could be one of several variants: An immortal creatures-dimshield deck has similar play (stalling while building up an inevitable win) to a mindgate deck, but I feel them completely different.

Maybe a deck can be defined as what cards do counter it? Most often than not the answer is straightforward regardless of the actual card variations in the deck.

[Exeneva]

To be honest, I feel like a lot of the options are very similar, so it's hard to differentiate some of the options.

Lots of aspects are important in making up a deck, but at its core it would be the cards having synergy to execute a strategy that will win you the game.

[Shylderidh]

Why are you doing this anyways

Curiosity ? To understand what criteria some people have to define a deck, and eventually labelling it as non original enough ?

In example, read the thread about Merrawder's decks (in decks help).

At some point, someone criticize them as :
"Some of the decks he posted were not even his decks, it was here before he posted those under different name/composition, but the combo is basically the same."

and he is advised by another that he shouldn't repost those non original decks on forums (not that I say it was a bad advice to give him, especially considering he has a ton of more interesting decks to post, I'm just giving an example).

Then go to a deck forum and count the number of decks posted under different names using combos which are basically the same with just slightly changed compositions, but aren't at all criticized for that. So I'm wondering what differenciates an original enough deck from a simple variant.

[Acsabi44]

The more I think about it, the more I conclude that its counters defnie a deck pretty well.

For example, a PSNbow can be defined by 70% Black Hole, 30% Reverse Time, while an Immorush can be countered by 70% RT 30% BH.
(This approach also hints that the two deck's principle is the same: that is, pumping out damage fast, without the need to rely on pillars. Also note  the sublte difference between the ratio of the counter card's effectivenesses, which basically defines the differences between the decks.)

Note that a Stallbow can be countered by BH, but not with Rewind effects, so it is impossible to confuse stallbows with SNbows this way.

This approach concentrates on the key cards and functioning of a given deck, but requires more deep understanding of it than a quick glance on the decklist.

I'm sure there are decks that cannot be defined this way, but IMO this approach is correct most times.

[RootRanger]

My question was how do you define a deck that desserve to be called a deck rather than being called "variant of..."

And I've answered this.

A deck is an exact list of cards.

Maybe I need to say more.

I don't really approve of the idea of trying to group every single deck into either being a "deck" or a "variant" of another deck. There will always be gray areas, no matter what definition is chosen. Instead, I think that every deck is a "deck" and also a "variant" of decks with similar cards.

The more I think about it, the more I conclude that its counters defnie a deck pretty well.

Theoretically this works. However, I have a couple things to say about  it.

Decks, not cards, counter decks. There are very few cases in which only a few cards can beat an entire deck type without decent support from the rest of the deck. Most decks don't have cards that completely counter them in any situation, but instead, decks that have the upper hand against them.

This definition isn't practical because it would require a large amount of testing. Not testing wouldn't work because the average user has a highly skewed view of what decks counter other decks.

[Acsabi44]

The more I think about it, the more I conclude that its counters defnie a deck pretty well.

Theoretically this works. However, I have a couple things to say about  it.

Decks, not cards, counter decks. There are very few cases in which only a few cards can beat an entire deck type without decent support from the rest of the deck. Most decks don't have cards that completely counter them in any situation, but instead, decks that have the upper hand against them.

This definition isn't practical because it would require a large amount of testing. Not testing wouldn't work because the average user has a highly skewed view of what decks counter other decks.

I agree, but it is also true that you and I, and the advanced players have a pretty good idea about what key cards counter a given deck. And that in itself vaugely categorizes the decks.
Of course this is more of a feeling (and the understanding of the game) than a defined counterdeck presented in each case, but it could work to categorize decks.

If we were to make exact categories based on this, we would need percentages and testing backing up the theory, to be able to draw a distinct line between a deck and another. But my guess is that this could work to get the big picture.

(And even smaller, subtle changes. For example, you might be thinking of using Deflags versus a PSNbow cause that specific PSNbow player plays 4 Discords in the deck. You'll notice that not only the Deflags are an effective counter to that tactic, but also the given PSNbow is played differently from an another PSNbow without Discords in it. IMO this difference warrants it to be considered as a different deck from Discordless PSNbows. And we realized this by thinking of Deflag as a counter.)