Is a rush or stall index possible?

[Falcon4415]

I might have gone a little too far with my thoughts, so I apologize for that. However, reducing the game to pure math is something I expect not to see (I wonder if this game, as chess, has too many possibilities for a computer to handle). Instead, I guess that having an incomplete, not 100% accurate theory about proper deckbuilding could be good (thinking about QI right now). I am willing to see whatever this turns into, be it for good or not.

[ratcharmer]

Huh, I'd actually sort of toyed with the idea of a "deck-building algorithm" as well (not that I have the skills to execute something like that). Although I was thinking I'd do it with synergy tables rather than some sort of measure of a cards worth.

More along the lines of "build a random deck based on this card" than "build an ideal deck of this type"

I'm not sure if you can make any sort of truly universal statements about which cards are best for what . . . but perhaps a broader categorical classification could work? Just sort of "strong" "moderate" and "weak" ratings in the categories of "rush" and "stall".

[jumpoffduck]

More along the lines of "build a random deck based on this card" than "build an ideal deck of this type"

Done!
http://jumpoffduck.co.cc/elements/randdeck.htm (http://jumpoffduck.co.cc/elements/randdeck.htm)

Guaranteed to make you the most pwny* deck ever!

*"pwny" is highly subjective. Generated deck may not actually be pwny depending on the observer. Batteries not included.

[TimerClock14]

More along the lines of "build a random deck based on this card" than "build an ideal deck of this type"

Done!
http://jumpoffduck.co.cc/elements/randdeck.htm (http://jumpoffduck.co.cc/elements/randdeck.htm)

Guaranteed to make you the most pwny* deck ever!

*"pwny" is highly subjective. Generated deck may not actually be pwny depending on the observer. Batteries not included.

I lol'ed

Look at this totally epic deck!

Code: [Select]

7ah 7ah 7ah 7ah 7ah 7ah 52k 58p 620 4sm 52u 7qd 7h1 592 58v 5l8 7k5 5rp 715 5lj 5fb 7ao 7n0 5ig 80a 61u 4vf 74o 7ai 7tc 5uo 80i 7qa 7h8 59c

[TheIdioticIdiot]

^^
hm... looks epic
has protection and CC in nymphs, spells, and shields
pulvy provides the PC
damage comes from the ever-growing spectres and poison from scorpions that ignore shields
epic indeed
though it has a slight quanta problem...
perhaps add in one or two quantum towers

[Sug81]

If you want to rank the creature with the variable lets say: cost/attack/ability, there is a way in mathematica to do that. It is called multicritiria analysis. You have an objective function which is the rank of this creature. You want this to be max. You have to decide how you rank its parameter, for example 35%cost, 35% abilities, 30% attack, and then you will decide the equation to calculate its parameter. For example the attack between 0-10 will be evaluated with more points then between 11-20 and so on. Like the damage of catapult which is given from the equation (75 * HP) / (75 + HP). With the same way you will rank every parameter. Finally you will find the creatures that maximize the started equation with the parameter 35%cost, 35% abilities, 30% attack lets say...

Of course this is subjective. The % you will give in its parameter is your opinion and will depend from the deck you are constructing. So this will be your rank for those creatures. Someone else would rank the creatures with different way. So in the equations you will use there is a fuzzy parameter. This would input fuzzy logic in your problem. Fuzzy logic is the mathematical way to solve subjective problems.

But in fact the human brain works with fuzzy way. (In math if someone is 1,79m is medium height and if he is 1,80 is height. Of course this is not correct. The mind understands this better than classic math.) It has nothing to do with the 0/1 way that works computer and classic math. So it is better with your brain to rank witch creatures are better than with multicritiria analysis, and of course the use of fuzzy logic is something difficult to find the exact number of fuzziness in your problem.

I think that the best someone can do is to make a program that calculates the pillars/towers a deck must have with standard cards. This is the real problem. If you make this program you have solve the problem.

[Acsabi44]

If this could work, then neither MtG nor Elements nor all the other CCGs would exist anymore.

[OldTrees]

If this could work, then neither MtG nor Elements nor all the other CCGs would exist anymore.

Depends on the depth of a solution that it creates.
A Tic Tac Toe level of analysis (ie solved) would not be played. However ETG and other CCGs have sufficient variable to prevent this.
A Chess level of analysis would be played.
TTW/opening studies, tournaments, PvE ...
Chess seems like a decent model for the level of analysis possible.

[ratcharmer]

So I was thinking about this a bit more.

At least for vanilla creatures, I think we could narrow things down to three variables:

Damage/quanta ratio, Damage/card ratio and how long a creature tends to survive (Oldtrees' study).

Now for a pure rush deck Damage/quanta is the most important consideration, followed by damage/card ratio (In the beginning of the game you have 7-8 cards so early on card usage is less important). Rush decks count on winning fast enough that survival time doesn't come into play very much.

In a stall deck damage/quanta ratio falls in importance since a longer game generally means there is more quanta available. Meanwhile card usage gains importance (late game -> 1 card/turn and you need to devote many cards to defense) as does survivability (game is longer so you need your creatures to last).

That being said, I still have no idea how to evaluate creature abilities, except where they influence survivability.

This does make a couple interesting predictions that concur with what I've seen as far as deck-making though:
-Dragons are generally the best vanilla creatures to use as a damage source in stall decks (GREAT damage/card ratio, good hp)
-In rush decks low-cost mid hitters are preferable due to their damage/cost ratios
-This also in part explains why graviton merc doesn't get much use. His survivability is good, but damage/cost and damage/card are both bad. Hence he doesn't work very well for stall OR rush.

[tiebearius]

Perhaps first you would find "neutral" cards that would work in both decs and make those 0. then cards that does work in both but tends to be better in one or the other, (if stall is negative and rush is positive) you would assign a +1/-1 to wards the direction it works. next cards that depend on other cards to work in their respective deck. They would get a +2/-2. Then cards that need to be in one or the other would get a +3/-3. Then Cards that rule such genders would get a +4/-4 Then combos that work well in a gender would get a +5/-5 And finally cards that don't fit in either would be removed from the program.

Then you just add your card/combo to the program and ask for the highest value to wards the gender you choose.

Not sure this would work, But it is how I would approach it.

I'm sure its not just this simple just because of the complexity elements has. But it would be my first attempt.

[ratcharmer]

Here's my thoughts on how we could put together a deck building program that wouldn't be too impossibly complex, but could still yield decks that are at least passable:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step 1:
Condense each card down to two numbers, one for how good it is in short games, one for how good it is in long games. (rush index vs. stall index)
Then, give each card a set of synergy numbers, for how good it is in combination with each other card. (more on this later)

Step 2:
Either a human "feeds" the program one or more cards, or it picks a starting card at random.

Step 3:
The program then picks the next card based on three criteria:
-The rush & stall index. More weight would be given to one versus the other depending on the total rush and stall index of the deck so far. (i.e. the more rush cards in the deck, the more likely it is to pick another rush card)
-The synergy tables. Basically each card would give a bonus to the chance of picking cards that work well in conjunction with it, and a penalty to cards that work poorly with it. (i.e. the program is more likely to pick discord if you already have black hole, but less likely to pick sanctuary if you already have dissipation shield)
-Any card that would require the addition of a new type of quanta to the deck would be given a penalty. This penalty would increase based on how many elements are already in the deck.
These three things would be evaluated together to determine the % chance of picking any given card.

Step 4:
The program then evaluates the QI of the deck to determine how many pillars/towers/pendulums the deck currently needs.

Step 5:
Repeat steps 3 & 4 until the deck contains 30 or more cards.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The decks produced wouldn't be perfect by any means, and there'd be several other flaws (it would never make a rainbow unless one of the starting cards was nova or a quantum tower or cremation, cremation would ALWAYS give a rainbow), but it should yield at least a semi-cohesive deck.

[badivan1]

Some factors:

• Damage:Quanta ratio is always something you can look at as a factor for rush index
• OldTrees's resilience study
• ratcharmer's stall study

So a frog would outclass the dragon in D:Q, but the dragon would win out in resilience.

Can someone provide the links for the resilience and stall studies ?