Another god farming deck. I will not call it ULTIMATE :)

[Scaredgirl]

My answer is YES.

You talk about reducing deck size to 40 to get "significant improvement". There is no such thing in math. Even 1% change can be the difference between life and death. Sure it's a small change, but sometimes 1% is enough to get that win, let alone 4%.

Also having mark of Gravity can be a problem early in the game. Even if you get a Sundial in your opening hand, you still need yellow AND white quantum to use if effectively. So your chances of using Sundials (and Hourglasses) early in the game are much lower than mine.

With my deck you can use Sundial even if you have no Towers and zero quantum because I have mark of Time. This is very important against Seism because of his early Earthquake spamming. Mark of time also helps me get those Hourglasses on the table much sooner which leads to being able to draw multiple cards early on which limits the role of luck.

[lomus]

So be it

Anyway, I already farmed all that I want with my deck. Just waiting for the updates of the game and cards now.

[brain9h]

Your math is misleading. It might seem just a 4% difference but you are considering just one scenaring: drawing on first hand. When you consider the combined chances of drawing N sundials in the first M turns, it becomes a HUGE matrixes of advantages in favor of a smaller deck, and when you add it all together, you will see how the difference is huge.

[lomus]

Really? Could you be so kind and post numbers?

[lomus]

Okay, I made more complete research into this.

Chances to draw set amount of sundials from 60-card deck with 6 sundials:

D\S	0	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	46	40	12	2	0	0	0
10	32	42	21	5	1	0	0
15	16	37	31	13	3	0	0
20	8	26	35	22	8	1	0
25	3	16	31	30	15	4	0

Chances to draw set amount of sundials from 54-card deck with 6 sundials:

D\S	0	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	42	42	15	2	0	0	0
10	27	42	24	6	1	0	0
15	13	33	33	16	4	0	0
20	5	22	34	26	11	2	0
25	2	11	28	33	20	6	1

Rows - cards drawed.
Cols - sundials drawed.

So, basicaly there is no HUGE difference.
Chances not to draw a sundial only improve by 1-5%, and all this in cost of reduced deck size.

[Scaredgirl]

There's no need to start doing advanced mathematics here. The bottom line is that there is a BETTER chance with smaller deck. Why on EARTH would you not take a better chance, even if it's as "insignificant" as 1-5%?

If you had a 50% chance of dying in real life today, wouldn't you rather want it to be 45% or 49%? It's a small difference but a better chance is a better chance. Period.

Bigger deck is not always better. Do you need 60 cards to beat a False God? No. Then why do you have 60 cards?

Lets take your deck as an example. You have 6 Elite Otyughs. Do you really need 6 Otyughs to beat a False God? No, you need 1 or 2. Then why do you have 6 of them? Doesn't make any sense. You probably are thinking "If I have 6 of them, there's a bigger chance for me to get one early". But then why won't you just remove 2 of them, some Towers, maybe Fallen Elf, and get a smaller deck? Your chance of getting Otyugh early will be the same BUT your chance of getting a Sundial will be much better.

Bigger deck only helps against decking out but you won't deck out if you play smart.

[lomus]

First of all, I'm not going to die tomorrow, sorry

Do I need 6 Otyughs to beat False God? Yeah, I need 1-2 but having 6 helps a lot if God manage to remove them one way or other.
Do I need to remove cards from the deck to increase chances of sundial by 5%? NO.
5% - this is realy low. This is not "MUCH BETTER", this is 1 game in 20. Does it worth it? NO.

The chances of getting one sundial in first 10 cards is EXACTLY THE SAME as with 54 card deck.
But chances to get Otyugh during this turns is about 12% more than if there will be 2 of them in 54 card deck.
This is every 9 game. Not every 20. See the difference?

Will I trade 12% for 5%? NO.

My point is, that statistically there is almost no difference in 54 card deck with 6 sundials or 60 card deck with 6 sundials.
And to improve chances of drawing sundial by noticable amount you need to shrink deck to about 40-45 cards.
Otherwise, it almost the same. Big deck DOES have advantages.

[Site Administrator]

Do you need 60 cards to beat a False God?

I only have 31 cards - and as I've been complaining about lack of proof - http://elementstheforum.smfforfree3.com/index.php/topic,25.msg1582#msg1582.

Although a bigger deck has the advantage of being less likely to deck out.

[Scaredgirl]

The chances of getting one sundial in first 10 cards is EXACTLY THE SAME as with 54 card deck.

Um... no. The bigger the deck, the smaller chance of you drawing one of those 6 cards. Do we really need to debate on that one?

Also like I said before, your deck has mark of Gravity which means that even if you get a Sundial, you still need white AND yellow quantum to use it. I only need white. So in reality the percentage is larger than 5%. And even if it was 5%, I would gladly take it.

You like to talk about things like "almost no difference", "insignificant", "noticeable".. there are no such things in math. It's not like there's some magical number after which there is "noticeable difference". It's not like 5% difference is nothing, while 6% difference really makes the difference. A BETTER CHANCE IS A BETTER CHANCE.

I like Sundials because chaining Sundials is the number one way of CONSISTENTLY beating all the False Gods. There is no better way. Period. Sure you might win fast if you get Otyughs on the table early in the game but you need luck to pull it off. And luck dependency is something we should avoid when playing Rainbow.

[lomus]

The chances of getting one sundial in first 10 cards is EXACTLY THE SAME as with 54 card deck.

Um... no. The bigger the deck, the smaller chance of you drawing one of those 6 cards. Do we really need to debate on that one?

Sorry, this line should be: The chances of getting ONE AND ONLY ONE sundial in the first 10 cards are same.

You complaining about me using words like "noticeable". Well, maybe I am wrong.
But consider situation when two decks are almost identical, when one have little to none advantage every 1000th game.
The second deck is better? Yeah, it is "better" but you will not notice the difference.

[Scaredgirl]

Sorry, this line should be: The chances of getting ONE AND ONLY ONE sundial in the first 10 cards are same.

You complaining about me using words like "noticeable". Well, maybe I am wrong.
But consider situation when two decks are almost identical, when one have little to none advantage every 1000th game.
The second deck is better? Yeah, it is "better" but you will not notice the difference.

You have an interesting way of doing math

Chances of getting ONE AND ONLY ONE sundial in the first 10 cards are NOT the same with 60 card and 54 card decks. How can you even make such a crazy statement?

With 54 card deck, there is a
- better chance of getting 1 Sundial
- better chance of getting 2 Sundials
- better chance of getting 3 Sundials
etc..

Just compare decks of 60 cards and 20 cards. Then maybe you understand why having a smaller deck improves your chances. Or are you saying that in that situation, chances of getting ONE AND ONLY ONE sundial in the first 10 cards are still the same?

And you don't get advantage every 1000th game. With 5% improved chances it's more like every 20th game. And that's without taking into consideration the fact that you don't have Time as your mark, and cannot always use Sundials (or Hourglasses) when needed.

[lomus]

Chances to get one and only one in first 10 cards are 42% in both variants.
You can do the math, I already posted tables.