Deck building theory

[Pantheon]

Coming from 14 years of playing Magic The Gathering, i see a lot of bad tendencies among players. Especially having way over 30 cards. If you know the basics of probability theory, you will understand that a 60 card deck will have a LOT higher chance of getting bad draws, not getting what you need early on, and getting lots of something and nothing of something else.

There are only two reasons to have more than 30 cards:
- Ratio: This only applies to very heavily playtested and theorycrafted decks. If you need to have 16/32ths of your deck to be pillars to make it optimal, or need a very complex combo that would rob you of quantum if you reduced to 30 cards, it's ok to go slightly over 30.

- Not decking out: Most decks that draw out are decks with sundials/hourglasses, which already have access to Eternity, which will prevent you from decking out in most situations.

One last thing: Almost everyone seems to overplay the role of luck in this game. If you have more than 30 cards in your deck and don't draw what you need in time, it's not bad luck. It's bad deckbuilding. Random order of cards in your deck, does not mean they should be evenly distributed (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clustering_illusion) - and if you built your deck more consistently, you would have a much higher chance of getting what you needed.

As skill increases, the effect of luck on the outcome of a game approaches zero.

[guy_fawkes]

what can I say?
i agree with your point, a competitive and consistent deck should minimize "bad draws" as much as it can...

i condone 60 cards deck if they are for fun or are made for gimmick combos

[Pantheon]

what can I say?
i agree with your point, a competitive and consistent deck should minimize "bad draws" as much as it can...

i condone 60 cards deck if they are for fun or are made for gimmick combos

Yeah true, but most gimmick combos can be done in 30 cards too, and go off much more often, resulting in more fun. Everyone knows drawing like crap isn't fun.

[Xinef]

There are some decks that benefit from a larger number of cards for another reason.

For example my anti-FG rainbow aims at stalling until I almost deck out while drawing cards with hourglasses, then it starts growing it's offense with pharaohs.

If this deck was reduced to 30 cards (eg. I'd have to replace 6 SoGs and 6 sundials with 3 of each), in late game I'd only have 3 SoGs and I would only be able to stall with sundials 3 times. Thus, it would be harder to deal with poison, immortal creatures I cannot remove etc. in late game. Also, I am often able to play 6 hourglasses before a false god draws 6 deflags. If my deck was cut in half, by the time FG draws 6 deflags I'd have lost 3 hourglasses and 3 other cards (probably SoGs).

Also, some cards like Butterfly Effect are nice at 1/55 ratio and changing that to 1/30 ratio would be harmful, or I'd have to completely remove offensive permanent control. But that's already covered by your first point in OP.

The thing is that sometimes (though rarely) it's worth to sacrifice consistency for late game power. It's not useful in decks that try to win before reaching their bottom, but it is useful in some anti-FG decks. Especially if a deck is constructed carefully so that you can survive some clustering. (Eg. 6 SoGs at the bottom, because you still draw 6 sundials and eternity early, or 6 sundials at the bottom, because you draw 6 SoGs early).

My deck has a 53% winning ratio against False Gods with 55 cards, while variants with less cards had lower winning percentages, which proves that sacrificing consistency might improve winning rates in some cases.

A very simple explanation would be that a consistent deck that has only 5% bad draws and 95% good draws might be worse against False Gods than an inconsistent deck that has 40% bad draws and 60% awesome draws.

[Zeru]

Pantheon, you made a decent post. Nothing to criticize here. Of course there are huge decks that are meant to deck out your opponent but they are not the majority.

[Pantheon]

"Pantheon, you made a decent post. Nothing to criticize here. Of course there are huge decks that are meant to deck out your opponent but they are not the majority."

Okay, that is one of the few reasons to make a big deck, but at this time there are no competitive decks that do this reliably and well, so it's really a moot point. I'm not talking about "fun decks", i'm talking about finely tuned decks, aiming for max win% and killing speed.

There are some decks that benefit from a larger number of cards for another reason.

For example my anti-FG rainbow aims at stalling until I almost deck out while drawing cards with hourglasses, then it starts growing it's offense with pharaohs.

If this deck was reduced to 30 cards (eg. I'd have to replace 6 SoGs and 6 sundials with 3 of each), in late game I'd only have 3 SoGs and I would only be able to stall with sundials 3 times. Thus, it would be harder to deal with poison, immortal creatures I cannot remove etc. in late game. Also, I am often able to play 6 hourglasses before a false god draws 6 deflags. If my deck was cut in half, by the time FG draws 6 deflags I'd have lost 3 hourglasses and 3 other cards (probably SoGs).

Also, some cards like Butterfly Effect are nice at 1/55 ratio and changing that to 1/30 ratio would be harmful, or I'd have to completely remove offensive permanent control. But that's already covered by your first point in OP.

The thing is that sometimes (though rarely) it's worth to sacrifice consistency for late game power. It's not useful in decks that try to win before reaching their bottom, but it is useful in some anti-FG decks. Especially if a deck is constructed carefully so that you can survive some clustering. (Eg. 6 SoGs at the bottom, because you still draw 6 sundials and eternity early, or 6 sundials at the bottom, because you draw 6 SoGs early).

My deck has a 53% winning ratio against False Gods with 55 cards, while variants with less cards had lower winning percentages, which proves that sacrificing consistency might improve winning rates in some cases.

A very simple explanation would be that a consistent deck that has only 5% bad draws and 95% good draws might be worse against False Gods than an inconsistent deck that has 40% bad draws and 60% awesome draws.

http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,1748.0.html
Rainbow deck with over 60% win rate, ie. better than yours, and it has 34 cards. I imagine it's pretty much the same kind of deck, but it's more consistent, and it's bound to win in around half (or less) of the time your deck takes. I can see that 55 cards can be FUN or good in a few ways, but the positives will almost always be overshadowed by the negatives.

Also, i'm not talking about taking a 55 card deck, and halving all the cards in the deck - you need card ratios adjusted to this deck size.

"Especially if a deck is constructed carefully so that you can survive some clustering. (Eg. 6 SoGs at the bottom, because you still draw 6 sundials and eternity early, or 6 sundials at the bottom, because you draw 6 SoGs early)." This isn't evidence or even an argument, it's a silly anecdote. Also, why build to survive clustering when you can just avoid it in the first place?

I know from your viewpoint it seems good, but having huge decks is worse than having a tight, well balanced and consistent small deck.

[Xinef]

http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,1748.0.html
Rainbow deck with over 60% win rate, ie. better than yours, and it has 34 cards. I imagine it's pretty much the same kind of deck, but it's more consistent, and it's bound to win in around half (or less) of the time your deck takes. I can see that 55 cards can be FUN or good in a few ways, but the positives will almost always be overshadowed by the negatives.

Also, i'm not talking about taking a 55 card deck, and halving all the cards in the deck - you need card ratios adjusted to this deck size.

"Especially if a deck is constructed carefully so that you can survive some clustering. (Eg. 6 SoGs at the bottom, because you still draw 6 sundials and eternity early, or 6 sundials at the bottom, because you draw 6 SoGs early)." This isn't evidence or even an argument, it's a silly anecdote. Also, why build to survive clustering when you can just avoid it in the first place?

I know from your viewpoint it seems good, but having huge decks is worse than having a tight, well balanced and consistent small deck.

Saying that having a huge deck is worse is like saying that a truck is worse than a sports car. Nope, it just has different advantages and disadvantages. It's better at doing some things while worse at doing other things. Some tactics are harder to do with a small deck, some are even impossible. On the other hand most tactics are better with a small deck than with a large one.

You say that the positives of a large deck will almost always be overshadowed by the negatives. I simply wanted to give one exception from this 'almost always'. I just mentioned another reason why someone might want to play a bigger deck and benefit from that.

When talking about efficiency, of course my deck is slower than small rainbows. Of course it wins less upgraded cards in a given amount of time. My point is that bigger decks can still be effective, not that they are the most effective. Do you see the difference?

If everything was about efficiency, then of course, everyone should play a rush deck and grind AI3, top50 or use a small rainbow and grind False Gods, whichever of these is most effective. And everyone should play the same deck, because only one deck is 'the most effective of all'.

On the other hand, I guess there are people out there who like to play control decks, decks with different combos, decks that are fun to play and still effective, even if suboptimal. If a deck can grind 70-80% as fast as the fastest deck out there, but is much more interesting to play from your perspective, which one would you choose?
What about if it was 30%? Or 50%?

I'd play both probably. Play the more effective when I need a little electrum fast, or simply to learn that deck's strengths. Play the less effective one whenever I have time to do so.

"Also, why build to survive clustering when you can just avoid it in the first place?"

Because it is worth building in such a way IF you decide to build a bigger deck.
For example, you could ask "Why design engines that use less fuel when you can ride a bike and use no fuel at all, or drive an electric car?", the answer is simple, it's a different approach to the same problem. Any of these has it's advantages and disadvantages. All of these are used by many people. There is nothing wrong with improving any of these or using a technique to improve it's efficiency and consistency.

[guy_fawkes]

i think that Pantheon's theory is ALWAYS correct in a PVP enviroment. Against a deck in the hands of a false god it may be proven wrong because the False God is basically "cheating", defying the laws of the game.
one can build a "theory" when the rules are set for everybody.

try a 55 rainbow deck in PVP against a 34 or 40 rainbow deck, the latter will always be more consistent, less susceptible to bad draws and will win more often.

[Xinef]

try a 55 rainbow deck in PVP against a 34 or 40 rainbow deck, the latter will always be more consistent, less susceptible to bad draws and will win more often.

Sounds like a challenge... I'll try it sometime, but right now war has priority

I can agree with 'more consistent' and 'less susceptible to bad draws' as it would probably be, but I think the last part might be possible to prove wrong, as the bigger one might have advantage in situations when both decks have a good draw.

[10 men]

Xinef already adressed most of the points on why it sometimes can be better to run more than 30 cards. Here is another example of a deck which is better with more than 30 cards.
For a while I used this deck for AI5-Farming (don't use it anymore because win rate went down a little with the addition of Thorn Carapace):

14 Aether Tower
6 Shard of Gratitude
6 Phase Shield
6 Elite Phase Dragon
2 Elite Immortal
2 Electrocutor

36 cards

Now you might think "Why not play 30 cards and keep most of the ratios? You could play something like this:

12 Aether Tower
5 Shard of Gratitude
5 Phase Shield
5 Elite Phase Dragon
1 Elite Immortal
2 Electrocutor"

Well, that deck's win% was just much worse than the other's. The reason? Feral Bond and Dissipation Shield. With the 30 card version I just kept losing against those cards via deckout. The 36 card version not only had 6 more turns to break through, but it also dealt 15 more damage/turn in the endgame.

i think that Pantheon's theory is ALWAYS correct in a PVP enviroment.

I disagree. It's possibly correct right now because the best PVP decks are speed decks, and the theory is mostly right for those, as speed decks are usually very homogeneous.

On a sort of off-forum note, being a longtime MtG player myself, I'm pretty sure that, if MtG had a minimum deck size of 30, lots of people would play more than that. For example, you could never run a deck like this (http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=36066) with just 30. You'd constantly be in danger of decking out, you'd have a much smaller number of threats, you would't be able to run game-breaking 1-offs and you' just have a terrible endgame. Deck size just isn't an issue in MtG as 60 cards minimum is far above the number you'd go down to even as a control player.

[Pantheon]

Xinef already adressed most of the points on why it sometimes can be better to run more than 30 cards. Here is another example of a deck which is better with more than 30 cards.
For a while I used this deck for AI5-Farming (don't use it anymore because win rate went down a little with the addition of Thorn Carapace):

14 Aether Tower
6 Shard of Gratitude
6 Phase Shield
6 Elite Phase Dragon
2 Elite Immortal
2 Electrocutor

36 cards

Now you might think "Why not play 30 cards and keep most of the ratios? You could play something like this:

12 Aether Tower
5 Shard of Gratitude
5 Phase Shield
5 Elite Phase Dragon
1 Elite Immortal
2 Electrocutor"

Well, that deck's win% was just much worse than the other's. The reason? Feral Bond and Dissipation Shield. With the 30 card version I just kept losing against those cards via deckout. The 36 card version not only had 6 more turns to break through, but it also dealt 15 more damage/turn in the endgame.

i think that Pantheon's theory is ALWAYS correct in a PVP enviroment.

I disagree. It's possibly correct right now because the best PVP decks are speed decks, and the theory is mostly right for those, as speed decks are usually very homogeneous.

On a sort of off-forum note, being a longtime MtG player myself, I'm pretty sure that, if MtG had a minimum deck size of 30, lots of people would play more than that. For example, you could never run a deck like this (http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=36066) with just 30. You'd constantly be in danger of decking out, you'd have a much smaller number of threats, you would't be able to run game-breaking 1-offs and you' just have a terrible endgame. Deck size just isn't an issue in MtG as 60 cards minimum is far above the number you'd go down to even as a control player.

Of course, the ratios have to be adjusted to the lower deck size - you can't just take a 36 card deck, remove 6 cards and call it a day. But yeah, this is one of my subtle points in the OP: If you have a deck without eternity, which VERY OFTEN has the chance to deck out, you might want to increase it slightly. However you need to check statistics, because you will, by the very nature of human psychology, feel that you lose to decking out a lot more than you ACTUALLY do. Also, you need to balance out the %chance to lose from decking out to the %chance to lose from bad/inconsistent draws.

Point is, there are a few exceptions to the rule, but they are MUCH fewer than most people think.

Also, in MtG there is a draft format, where you are allowed 40-card decks. Even in formats when almost EVERYONE plays cards that help deck out the opponent, everyone skilled still plays 40 cards. Why? Because it's better to have a consistent draw and win before the other player can get his stuff going, than to play a bad deck that is less susceptible to one single win condition.

[10 men]

Of course, the ratios have to be adjusted to the lower deck size - you can't just take a 36 card deck, remove 6 cards and call it a day. But yeah, this is one of my subtle points in the OP: If you have a deck without eternity, which VERY OFTEN has the chance to deck out, you might want to increase it slightly. However you need to check statistics, because you will, by the very nature of human psychology, feel that you lose to decking out a lot more than you ACTUALLY do. Also, you need to balance out the %chance to lose from decking out to the %chance to lose from bad/inconsistent draws.

Of course. Only thing that matters is the final winrate, which in some cases can be improved by playing more than 30 cards. In general, playing more cards makes the more sense the heavier a deck is oriented towards the lategame. So against AI3 you should never play a 31st card because just rushing them as fast as possible is the best. Against Fake Gods however, all rush strategies are bound to fail. To beat them you will usually some sort of engine to grind them out, some of which require you to play more than 30 cards. An example of this would be Electrum Hourglass decks like Xinef's that use Hourglasses to draw a large number of cards that allow you to dominate the endgame. Wheather that is the best strategy is not the question but be aware that smaller decks can also have consistency issues. For example the small Entropy Rainbow deck (PuppyChow's) you referred to earlier gets major problems if it doesn't have supernova in the opener. Also Eternity, which is vital for the deck to not deck out is just a horrible card (it's basically a blank) on its own, because you will rarely have the quanta to use its ability.

Also, in MtG there is a draft format, where you are allowed 40-card decks.

The draft reference is pretty bad for this argument, because over the course of a draft you only pick up 42 cards (without lands) that you can build your deck from. So if you play more than 40 cards you will have to play worse cards. The reduced average card quality will hurt your win percentage much more than consistency issues. Moreover, draft decks rarely end up being lategame control decks that benefit from playing more cards. Lastly, 40 cards is much more than 30 - with a 30 card deck you can 23 cards before decking out, with a 40-card deck it's 33 cards, which is almost one and a half times more.