How do you define QI in this thread? I was always sure that it was total cost/number of pillars.
The conclusion in the OP is weird. The more creatures you have, the more expensive they should be? How does that even make sense?
Ok. I think I have an answer. For those, who don't like complex posts, you can skip directly to the conclusion.
Looking at the two most extreme situations: (24 pillars, 6 creatures) and (6 pillars, 24 creatures) and using the QI I have realized that the average cost of a creature in deck1 should be 13 and in deck2 it should be 2, which actually makes sense. Let's call deck1 a dragon deck and deck2 a lycan deck to make it less abstract.
The reason why the QI in the dragon deck is so low is because you simply do not have any more powerful creatures then them. Your deck will be ridiculously overflowing with quanta, but you don't have much of a choice in that situation. That deck is fast by quickly playing a single dragon than you luckily drew and finishing the game with it. Knowing that it's not surprising that you have huge "jumps" in your correlation. The dragon deck is very bad and any new creature will make it vastly better.
As for the Lycan deck, the situation is quite the opposite. The average cost should be 2. The reason for it is that you will have almost no quanta at all. I am pretty sure that your hand will get clogged and you will have to discard often. If you didn't take this effect into account, the real optimal price could be even lower. This deck is fast in a sense that you need to get as much quanta as possible to be able to swarm your opponent. With that in mind I would be a proponent of mixing free creatures and some creatures above the average cost to balance it out. That way you avoid clogging your hand to much.Reminder: When the QI was first brought up by ScaredGirl, it was supposed to be used to "fuel the deck enough to play 1 card per turn". A very good intelligent guess told us that it was around 5. Rush users quickly noted, that they want to play more than 1 card per turn and they don't care that they are overflowing midgame, while stall users realized that they don't care that they can't afford card early game, because it's the mid game, when they actually start defending, so the the optimal QI was rushes was said to be around 4-4,5 and for stalls around 5,5-6.
Your error was that you simply used TTW as a factor. It's not that your results are weird. It's simply the nature of the Dragon deck and the Lycan deck to be flawed in it's design. You do not put only 6 creatures or as much as 24 creatures and hope that it's good. It's the amounts with the optimal QI between 4-5 that are actually used.Conclusion: Your research brought some unexpected results and therefore it was very interesting. Great work!
