Computer Simulations - ROUND 3

[MyNameIsJoey]

I tested the EXACT deck that farscape used and got much, much lower results, lower even than the deck i posted now. but oh well.

[majofa]

I tested the EXACT deck that farscape used and got much, much lower results, lower even than the deck i posted now. but oh well.

Did you remember to do 2x mark and 150 hp?

[MyNameIsJoey]

I tested the EXACT deck that farscape used and got much, much lower results, lower even than the deck i posted now. but oh well.

Did you remember to do 2x mark and 150 hp?

1 did, and if i didnt i wouldve had better results dont you think?

[majofa]

I tested the EXACT deck that farscape used and got much, much lower results, lower even than the deck i posted now. but oh well.

Did you remember to do 2x mark and 150 hp?

1 did, and if i didnt i wouldve had better results dont you think?

Ya, true.. but I ended up with the same %s as Submachine

[RootRanger]

Either you were using a browser other than Chrome, or you weren't using a similar deck. By "similar" I mean within 1-2 cards, because anything more than that can have a moderate effect on the results. But if you had the exact same testing conditions, the probability that you would get much lower results from sheer chance would be...almost zero.

Even then, the biggest difference was that Mono Entropy was a counter to your Crusader deck, but a very week choice against farscape's rainbow.

[majofa]

Either you were using a browser other than Chrome, or you weren't using a similar deck. By "similar" I mean within 1-2 cards, because anything more than that can have a moderate effect on the results. But if you had the exact same testing conditions, the probability that you would get much lower results from sheer chance would be...almost zero.

Even then, the biggest difference was that Mono Entropy was a counter to your Crusader deck, but a very week choice against farscape's rainbow.

Oh, I misunderstood what he meant.

[Odii Odsen]

I tested the EXACT deck that farscape used and got much, much lower results, lower even than the deck i posted now. but oh well.

Its actually very simple. Mono Entropy with 39 cards is a nice counter to your deck (almost 100%) but very weak against a 40 card bow (0% winratio). That mono entropy can't win against a bigger deck, cause its based on deck outs.

[Submachine]

The percentages during the testing were very unstable, for example: a deck that I tested first showed 20% more winrate than second. It may be because it's all about luck whether a card or a combo gets drawn or not. And there were 4 tests, so all these ~20 differences might have added up. (20 is just a limitnumber, the differences were usually less than 20)

[Odii Odsen]

The percentages during the testing were very unstable, for example: a deck that I tested first showed 20% more winrate than second. It may be because it's all about luck whether a card or a combo gets drawn or not. And there were 4 tests, so all these ~20 differences might have added up. (20 is just a limitnumber, the differences were usually less than 20)

Not sure if I understand what you said, but I built (just for fun) a similar deck to farscape's one. And it had almost the same winratios. Even after more than 3x1000 runs. It varied between ~0,1 - 3 %

[andretimpa]

The percentages during the testing were very unstable, for example: a deck that I tested first showed 20% more winrate than second. It may be because it's all about luck whether a card or a combo gets drawn or not. And there were 4 tests, so all these ~20 differences might have added up. (20 is just a limitnumber, the differences were usually less than 20)

I made 5000 games for each matchup while I was testing. It seemed enough to remove any fluctuations, but that would a lot of work (and boring) to do it for all decks in all groups.

I tested the EXACT deck that farscape used and got much, much lower results, lower even than the deck i posted now. but oh well.

Its actually very simple. Mono Entropy with 39 cards is a nice counter to your deck (almost 100%) but very weak against a 40 card bow (0% winratio). That mono entropy can't win against a bigger deck, cause its based on deck outs.

While I was making preliminary tests I tested my deck with 6 antimatters instead of 4 and got 15% against farscape. This made no sense at all so I checked single games and it turns out the simulator was creating singularities from the supernovas, which didn't happened when I packed 4 antimatters. So, yeah, this simulator is kinda crazy.

[Submachine]

The percentages during the testing were very unstable, for example: a deck that I tested first showed 20% more winrate than second. It may be because it's all about luck whether a card or a combo gets drawn or not. And there were 4 tests, so all these ~20 differences might have added up. (20 is just a limitnumber, the differences were usually less than 20)

I made 5000 games for each matchup while I was testing. It seemed enough to remove any fluctuations, but that would a lot of work (and boring) to do it for all decks in all groups.

If majofa and the participiants agree, I'm willing to do this 5000 game for each for all groups to be more accurate. From now on, I'll use this method for the rest of the round.

[Calindu]

The percentages during the testing were very unstable, for example: a deck that I tested first showed 20% more winrate than second. It may be because it's all about luck whether a card or a combo gets drawn or not. And there were 4 tests, so all these ~20 differences might have added up. (20 is just a limitnumber, the differences were usually less than 20)

I made 5000 games for each matchup while I was testing. It seemed enough to remove any fluctuations, but that would a lot of work (and boring) to do it for all decks in all groups.

If majofa and the participiants agree, I'm willing to do this 5000 game for each for all groups to be more accurate.

I agree with this.