[Official] Dimensional Shield | Phase Shield

[OldTrees]

Use the code in my post on page 24. Actually, Dim shield at 30 is still about as good as dusk shield (actually slightly better). With more pillars and fewer creatures it can do more damage to a pure rush opponent. I used 20 pillars and 4 creatures for 3 turn 30 quanta dim shield, and it was slightly better than 15 pillar, 12 creature, 3 dusk shield. 

With only 4 creatures in a 30 card deck, what fraction of the time does it deckout?
Did you attribute half of the deckouts as losses?

The comparison is solely based on damage dealt to an effectively infinite-HP opponent. The decks are 30 cards. So if the dim shield deck decks out before dealing 100 damage, that only reduces its average damage. Since its average damage is significantly above 100, this isn't the common case. You have a good point though; while the dim shield deck may have the capacity to deal a lot more damage than the dusk shield deck over 23 turns, it may not be as reliable.
So the dim shield deck may sometimes deal 50 damage when it only draws 1 creature in the first 20 cards, but compensate by dealing 300 damage in other games where it gets its creatures early enough. I would say however, that dim shield has the property of lengthening games, which makes it inherently more consistent than dusk shield. And there is always the possibility of drawing 2 or more dusk shields before being killed on turn 11.

I will address the orange section.
All games where a Dim shield deck does not deal 100 damage before deckout and survive until deckout are decided by a coin toss. All games where a Dim shield deck survives to deal 100 damage are wins for the Dim shield deck. (All games where the Dim Shield deck loses are losses)
So no, the 300 damage game does not let us treat the 50 damage game as a win. The 50 damage game is still a 50%win/50%loss.

As we can see by your data:
Your data assumes a player focuses on a 30 card deck with 6 Dim Shields + sufficient Pillars and fills the leftover spaces with creature.
In this case increases to the cost of Dim Shield do not result in lower survival rate. Rather they result in lower offensive power (the stat previously ignored by the program). The results in significant reduction in the reliability of the deck. This reduction in reliability is a reduction in win rate and thus is a nerf to the strategy.

You conclude that a 27 cost Dim Shield is balanced. Are you willing to test more sophisticated deck to see if your conclusion is accurate or merely the byproduct of the simplification?

[jawdirk]

So no, the 300 damage game does not let us treat the 50 damage game as a win. The 50 damage game is still a 50%win/50%loss.

I see the damage per game metric as being a separate metric from the win % metric. That said, the win % metrics I posted earlier actually assume that a deck-out of the opponent is a loss for the dim shield player if he hasn't yet dealt 100 damage (the dusk shield player never decks out). So by your standards, my win % metric is biased against the dim shield decks because it doesn't allow victory through deck-out. So if I were to make the change you propose, the dim shield win percentages would go up (probably significantly).

You conclude that a 27 cost Dim Shield is balanced. Are you willing to test more sophisticated deck to see if your conclusion is accurate or merely the byproduct of the simplification?

Absolutely, time allowing. As you can see by my posts-per-day, I don't spend a lot of time on this site. That time is the same time I would use to improve the simulation (maybe I could spare a little more time).

But even if I can't improve the simulation in a reasonable amount of time, I released the source code, so anyone with ruby skills can improve it.

What improvements did you have in mind?
 

[eaglgenes101]

PC causes a bigger effect in dimshield decks than in other shield decks. When you blow up a dusk shield, it's just one unshielded turn if the opponent can play another in the hand. If you blow up a just-played dim shield, that's 3 turns, not one, of shield time flushed down the drain.

[OldTrees]

What improvements did you have in mind?

Balance theory usually starts at the theoretical and moves towards the practical in order to verify results. So A mono darkness stall deck, a mono aether stall deck and a rush deck without PC or evasive damage would be the next step.

However it seems like you probably don't have the time to preform a player vs player playtest set.

[storyteller]

the problem is that no one is thinking clearly here

6 dim shields. 6.

1-2 of any other shield

repeated play costs, vs one play cost

lastly, versatility. dim shields require you build the deck around dim shields

a dusk shield, or any other, fits in so many different decks.

if i am building a deck, and its not a mono/duo, I just ask, dusk or permafrost or jade?

you do not see dim shield used outside of dim shield based decks, which are specific.


dim shield is as balanced as anything else, by the simplicity factor, the ease of use factor, which it trail behind every other shield in.

there is a great set of code that shows how balanced a card is, its called Elements the Game, and just playing it for awhile will show that dim shield is fine, as is.

[jawdirk]

the problem is that no one is thinking clearly here

6 dim shields. 6.

1-2 of any other shield

repeated play costs, vs one play cost

There is no rule that you have to put 6 dim shields in your deck. Make a rush deck with 3 dim shields. It is very effective.
My simulations suggest that 1-2 dusk shields is less effective than 3 dusk shields against a rush deck. 3 is the sweet spot for non-repeat shields.

lastly, versatility. dim shields require you build the deck around dim shields

No they don't. 6 dim shields is better than less, but less is very playable.

you do not see dim shield used outside of dim shield based decks, which are specific.

Try it out; you may be surprised.

there is a great set of code that shows how balanced a card is, its called Elements the Game, and just playing it for awhile will show that dim shield is fine, as is.

As long as you only play decks that have some way around dim shield. Otherwise, prepare to get your butt kicked by mono aether 92% of the time you play against it.

[storyteller]

yeah, but mono aether just doesnt get plaed that much. the reason, dim shields are expensive and take a lot of your deck to be defeated by

deckout
momentum
poison
spells
faster deck

any deck you make, will have a weakness to another deck. mono-aether dim shield decks are no different

its worthless versus a Stampede deck.

[jawdirk]

yeah, but mono aether just doesnt get plaed that much. the reason, dim shields are expensive and take a lot of your deck to be defeated by

deckout
momentum
poison
spells
faster deck

any deck you make, will have a weakness to another deck. mono-aether dim shield decks are no different

its worthless versus a Stampede deck.

All of the above work just as well against dusk shield, permafrost shield, and thorn carapace as they work against dim shield. What I am asserting is that dim shield is OP relative to the other shields. It may be that the current meta discourages shield use in general. But how does that impact whether dim shield is OP? The fact that a card has counters doesn't mean it isn't OP, especially if the meta revolves around decks that have those counters.

And just to repeat, dim shield doesn't use a lot of your deck if you only put 3 in your deck, and it still works better than 3 dusk shields.

[storyteller]

you just dont get it do you?

there is more to determining power than raw damage numbers. I think it is great you wrote a simple script to do some math, and analyze some data. thats really great. you are however oversimplifying the situation. you are not taking into account all variables that determine the power of a card.

tell you what, go put those programming skills to work. make your own card game, and balance all the cards perfectly. if you are right, people will play your game and you will be more successful than zanz.

Ill give you a clue though. Thomas Edison invented this drum recording machine. It was better than pressed records. it had greater fidelity and sound quality. it was technically more precise, better, mathematically. people didnt buy recordings made on it. they bought the cheaper pressed records, that had poorer sound quality. they bought them, because they had recordings of popular well known singers.

what your program is failing to account for, is the human factor, the variable that changes the equation, which is how much people use a card and how they use a card.  Your simplified code example may be technically accurate, but it doesnt cover key factors in determining the power and usefulness of a card.

dim shield is fine, as is. it fills a niche, at an appropriate cost, with plenty of counters for it. Why is dusk 'better', because you dont need to carry as many and it can fit in more decks. dim shield lacks the element of 'versatility'. write some code that accounts for that and then come back in here and make your case. until you recognize that your experiment is flawed, i doubt you will get much acceptance of your ideas.

[OldTrees]

yeah, but mono aether just doesnt get plaed that much. the reason, dim shields are expensive and take a lot of your deck to be defeated by

deckout
momentum
poison
spells
faster deck

any deck you make, will have a weakness to another deck. mono-aether dim shield decks are no different

its worthless versus a Stampede deck.

All of the above work just as well against dusk shield, permafrost shield, and thorn carapace as they work against dim shield. What I am asserting is that dim shield is OP relative to the other shields. It may be that the current meta discourages shield use in general. But how does that impact whether dim shield is OP? The fact that a card has counters doesn't mean it isn't OP, especially if the meta revolves around decks that have those counters.

Mild correction: If the card pool is biased against a set of cards and there is imbalance between the cards of that set, it is evidence that the weaker cards in the set are UP rather than the stronger cards in the set are OP.

[majofa]

Everyone seems to have fallen back into the 'monoaether' is easy to beat... With Psions and Fractals, Aether can be so much faster than that.

Fractal can beat deckout
Lobotomizer can beat Momentum (or just normal speed, since most Momentum decks are slower; Lightnings kill Chargers)
Psions go past Bone Walls, Fractal knocks BWs down fast, Dims stop Arsenic from hitting
Spells can take a while to build up, so you better hope you're playing a very slow aether deck
{faster deck} unless you have PC, you're going to lose, and you better hope you draw multiples because 1-2 turns of stopped damage may be all it takes for you to lose

[jawdirk]

Why is dusk 'better', because you dont need to carry as many

This is wrong. You have to play test before you can make claims like this. There may be some decks where 1 dusk shield is better than 1 dim shield, but in general, this is not true. Based on simulations, I would estimate that 1 dusk shield improves your chance to win by 17% against straight rush, where as 1 dim shield improves your chance to win against straight rush by 26%. A single dim shield unanswered will win the game for you. A single dusk shield unanswered might give you an edge.

and it can fit in more decks. dim shield lacks the element of 'versatility'. write some code that accounts for that and then come back in here and make your case. until you recognize that your experiment is flawed, i doubt you will get much acceptance of your ideas.

Dusk shield can fit in more decks? I have no idea what you mean by this. Are you saying more decks in the meta game have dusk shield? Are you saying that more decks that you make have dusk shield? Are you saying that aether is in general less playable than darkness? Are you saying it's hard to make a duo aether?

The cards do the same thing. They protect you against vanilla damage. That is all they do. And dim shield does it much, much better.