433
Guest Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by a guest. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
434
Rainbow Decks / Re: The JMZ Classic [rainbow][Silver League][Gold League]
« on: July 11, 2011, 11:04:01 pm »
Still using this & kev's modded TADAbow to farm. Great deck. You may want to update the OP with the changes in the deck as well as listing them at this point. It feels overly tight on 
with pulvy/sader, but the obvious change is to lose the charger and I'm not sure what goes there instead. I'll put some thought into it later. I should be studying 
with pulvy/sader, but the obvious change is to lose the charger and I'm not sure what goes there instead. I'll put some thought into it later. I should be studying
435
Metamorphosis - Battle Results / Re: Round 1 - Battle Results
« on: July 11, 2011, 10:20:46 pm »
---> 
kirchj33 - 3
nilsieboy - 1
Game 1: WIN
Code: [Select]
5f0 5f0 5f0 5f0 5f0 5f0 5f0 5f4 5f4 5f4 5f4 5f4 5f4 5f5 5f5 5f5 5f7 5f7 5f7 5lm 5lm 5lm 5lm 5lm 5lm 5mq 5mq 5mq 5mq 5mq 5mq 5mqChanges:
Sanctuary ---> Phoenix
Light Pendulum ---> Fire Pendulum
-1 Fire Pillar
Game 2 & 3: LOSS, WIN
Code: [Select]
5f0 5f0 5f0 5f0 5f0 5f0 5f4 5f4 5f4 5f4 5f4 5f4 5f5 5f5 5f5 5f7 5f7 5f7 5fc 5fc 5fc 5fc 5fc 5fc 5gi 5gi 5gi 5gi 5gi 5gi 5giChanges:
Fire Shield ---> Deflag
Fahrenheit ---> Rage Pot
-1 Fire Pend
Game 4: WIN
Code: [Select]
5f0 5f0 5f0 5f0 5f0 5f0 5f4 5f4 5f4 5f4 5f4 5f4 5f6 5f6 5f6 5fb 5fb 5fb 5fc 5fc 5fc 5fc 5fc 5fc 5gi 5gi 5gi 5gi 5gi 5giChanges:
Burning Pillar ---> Immolation
Firebolt ---> Iridium Warden
Final Deck:
Code: [Select]
596 596 596 596 596 596 5f6 5f6 5f6 5f9 5f9 5f9 5f9 5f9 5f9 5fb 5fb 5fb 5fc 5fc 5fc 5fc 5fc 5fc 5gi 5gi 5gi 5gi 5gi 5gi
436
Grid - Battle Results / Re: Final Round Results
« on: July 11, 2011, 08:02:21 pm »
Grats SteppingStone81! I loved this event and you were relentless each round. I ran out of time to commit to keep you on your heels towards the late rounds, but I think majofa and others did well to keep the pressure on. If I am not too lazy I will post an all-star deck round, highlighting the best/most interesting/fun decks for each round.
437
Farming Studies and Statistics / Re: FG Efficiency Study - Applying statistics to all of the myths
« on: July 11, 2011, 07:36:16 pm »
ggabers,
I have no problem with the data or designing a deck with aggressive skips. I think this is great. There are two problems with this:
1. None of the other decks have been tested with aggressive skips in mind. Again, as mentioned before, I don't forsee other decks passing this one in terms of efficiency if the data holds and the skip data is removed, but this will require more games (goal: 500) played before we can start taking this approach.
For more information on a possible plan for this approach, see here: http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,25609.msg381203.html#msg381203
2. I have no doubt the data you posted is fair, but in order to keep things on an even level, we have to exclude data posted by those that make the decks themselves. This is so that there is not a testing bias involved. I will add your deck to the study and I know Jenkar is already working on getting some data posted on the deck.
I have no problem with the data or designing a deck with aggressive skips. I think this is great. There are two problems with this:
1. None of the other decks have been tested with aggressive skips in mind. Again, as mentioned before, I don't forsee other decks passing this one in terms of efficiency if the data holds and the skip data is removed, but this will require more games (goal: 500) played before we can start taking this approach.
For more information on a possible plan for this approach, see here: http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,25609.msg381203.html#msg381203
2. I have no doubt the data you posted is fair, but in order to keep things on an even level, we have to exclude data posted by those that make the decks themselves. This is so that there is not a testing bias involved. I will add your deck to the study and I know Jenkar is already working on getting some data posted on the deck.
438
General Discussion / Re: FG Efficiency Study - Applying statistics to all of the myths
« on: July 11, 2011, 07:36:16 pm »
ggabers,
I have no problem with the data or designing a deck with aggressive skips. I think this is great. There are two problems with this:
1. None of the other decks have been tested with aggressive skips in mind. Again, as mentioned before, I don't forsee other decks passing this one in terms of efficiency if the data holds and the skip data is removed, but this will require more games (goal: 500) played before we can start taking this approach.
For more information on a possible plan for this approach, see here: http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,25609.msg381203#msg381203
2. I have no doubt the data you posted is fair, but in order to keep things on an even level, we have to exclude data posted by those that make the decks themselves. This is so that there is not a testing bias involved. I will add your deck to the study and I know Jenkar is already working on getting some data posted on the deck.
I have no problem with the data or designing a deck with aggressive skips. I think this is great. There are two problems with this:
1. None of the other decks have been tested with aggressive skips in mind. Again, as mentioned before, I don't forsee other decks passing this one in terms of efficiency if the data holds and the skip data is removed, but this will require more games (goal: 500) played before we can start taking this approach.
For more information on a possible plan for this approach, see here: http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,25609.msg381203#msg381203
2. I have no doubt the data you posted is fair, but in order to keep things on an even level, we have to exclude data posted by those that make the decks themselves. This is so that there is not a testing bias involved. I will add your deck to the study and I know Jenkar is already working on getting some data posted on the deck.
439
Farming Studies and Statistics / Re: FG Efficiency Study - Applying statistics to all of the myths
« on: July 11, 2011, 01:33:49 am »As i said in chat, upped LA = only DG as autoskip. gabriel and i agreed on this.No, I don't wish. The standard protocol, as mentioned, will be to tease out skipped data once enough raw data is collected, based off some determined FGei.
I can give the unupped autoskips i used, if it is wished.
440
General Discussion / Re: FG Efficiency Study - Applying statistics to all of the myths
« on: July 11, 2011, 01:33:49 am »As i said in chat, upped LA = only DG as autoskip. gabriel and i agreed on this.No, I don't wish. The standard protocol, as mentioned, will be to tease out skipped data once enough raw data is collected, based off some determined FGei.
I can give the unupped autoskips i used, if it is wished.
441
Farming Studies and Statistics / Re: FG Efficiency Study - Applying statistics to all of the myths
« on: July 11, 2011, 01:18:54 am »
Before everyone gets their panties in a wad, I would caution that this data for LA is based off of two people who are skipping games without playing them out. Even though, this makes sense mathematically vs. god that have 0% chance of winning, no other deck has this kind of data at this point. We will need more testers submitting data for the top decks, this way we can mathematically tease out the skips according to god-specific FGei. That being said, the LA data is so strong that I doubt it will be caught by any other deck even with this systematic data addition/manipulation.
442
General Discussion / Re: FG Efficiency Study - Applying statistics to all of the myths
« on: July 11, 2011, 01:18:54 am »
Before everyone gets their panties in a wad, I would caution that this data for LA is based off of two people who are skipping games without playing them out. Even though, this makes sense mathematically vs. god that have 0% chance of winning, no other deck has this kind of data at this point. We will need more testers submitting data for the top decks, this way we can mathematically tease out the skips according to god-specific FGei. That being said, the LA data is so strong that I doubt it will be caught by any other deck even with this systematic data addition/manipulation.
443
Duo-Decks / Re: Ray of Lulz / Hope
« on: July 10, 2011, 05:33:46 am »
Yay! Suboptimal decks are sooooo much fun. Just kidding! I do think crusaders are a good idea though.
444
Metamorphosis / Re: Metamorphosis - Preparation
« on: July 09, 2011, 04:55:19 am »
You may want to send a reminder via pm. It had been so long since sign-ups started that I almost didn't realize this was going on.