Cactus Game Design Message Boards

I disagree with the above sentiments, luck is an unbelievably large factor. If the decks are constructed equally well, it plays a role that's just as big as skill. Choosing wrong between option A and B is a big deal, but not having option B is a big deal too. If you and your opponent deck out I'd say that things swing into the favor of skill taking over, overwhelmingly, but if you play a 6 turn game that just isn't the case. The way I like to view it is to give each card a rating (based on situation, not a static number), from a scale of 1 to 10. If I go through half my deck and average 2.4, but my opponent averages 7.6, I'm probably not going to win (even if I play perfectly) unless my opponent plays poorly.

I think the reason I'm in the minority on this topic is because I don't believe how well you play matters if it doesn't effect the outcome. If I play a game perfectly and lose (with equal decks), I think it's safe to say everyone will agree that it was luck. If I play that exact same game (opponent plays equally as well, same decks, exact same draws) and play terribly (making dozens of huge mistakes), but the score is still the same, it doesn't matter. I still lost, and that loss was to luck and not skill.

Just judging from personal experience, this seems to be correct. Here's a list of the t1 games I've lost this year:
1.) Some local or district vs Gabe - I had none of the new cards at this point in the year and was using my deck from last year, so there's no point in evaluating this.
2.) IA State vs Gabe - He got a first turn Mayhem, Fishing Boat, Pentecost, and like 5 disciples. I played well (likely made a mistake or two, nothing game changing), but got wrecked because there is no way to beat that. I do concede his deck was better, probably something like 45-55
3.) IA State vs Tim Maly -  Even in hindsight I would have played everything the same way. There's not much you can do when your last 4 purple enhancements are within the bottom 5 cards of your deck. Tim played well too, but my deck was likely better.
4.) NC Regionals vs Tim Maly - I made one small mistake, but even Tim agreed that it would have not affected the game at all. On paper my deck was better, but I ended up losing a close game. Tim made one questionable play that I disagree with, although I wouldn't call it a mistake.
5.) NC Regionals vs Stephen Nesfederer - I made one mistake that could have (40% sure) cost me a soul, but losing 5-2 isn't much better then losing 5-1. Otherwise, I played well and preferred my deck.

That's just what I've lost, I've won many games due to luck. I beat Nathan at Regionals because of a first turn Mayhem, my play was not spectacular and did not outmatch his. I beat Josh at Regionals because I walked in for 4 free rescues, I didn't see any holes in his play. That may have something to do with deck building, but this was when we were 3-1 or something, so he had won some free games too. The list can really go on for a while.

Mind you, this is from someone that has admittedly poor play.  My only loss at 2010 NC Regionals was because I buried my opponent's lost soul. My only loss at the 2011 type 2 only *might* have been avoided if I didn't misuse an artifact. At 2009 NC Regionals I attacked with the wrong hero which cost me a game, and I believe cost be placing. In all of those games I admit it wasn't luck that made me lose, but poor play (Coincidentally, 2 of those 3 games I decked out or came very close to decking out).

I'd like to point out that in the Alstad/Voigt game, Nathan brought a tech deck specifically to play against Jordan but didn't use it beings they were paired first round. I forget how many people were playing, but that's like a 10% chance. In this specific scenario it didn't matter, but had Jordan won, that'd be another form of luck that decides games. "What if my Thorn in the Flesh deck just happens to meet a Strength in Weakness deck" sums it up nicely? I can obviously add stuff in to help against it, but I can't counter everything that soft, or even hard, counters my deck.

Card advantage (often abbreviated CA) is a term used in collectible card game strategy to indicate one player having access to more cards than another player.[1] The concept was first discovered early in the history of Magic: The Gathering strategy. Many early decks relied on gaining more cards than their opponent then using this advantage in order to play either a game winning spell with enough counterspell backup or to slowly kill their opponent while preventing their opponent from casting meaningful spells. Today it is recognized as one of the most important indicators of who is ahead in a game.[2]

in most mainstream ccg's this is often correlated to as pluses and minuses. for instance, words of encouragement translates to a +2, because you draw 3 but used one card to play it, so it nets you 2. coliseum lions translates to a +0 (other ccg's use the term 'one-for-one' in these scenarios), because it cost you one card to defeat another 1 card. sold into slavery is a -1, because you use 2 cards to only take out one card.

this principle in general lends itself to why mayhem is so broken, because at full potential it becomes a +10.

when i said full potential i meant the most practical...i wouldnt want to know what the odds are of one player having 16 cards in hand and the other only having a mayhem.

i arrived at +10 from a first turn mayhem (FTM henceforth...FTK's are official ccg slang, and we use first turn mayhem so much it now deserves its own acronym ) because you get +5 if mayhem is your only card in hand (draw 6 minus the mayhem used) and 11 down to 6 is 5...resulting in +10.

Full potential would be Opp having 16 and I having only the Mayhem, leading to a +20.  A perfect First Turn Mayhem would be +12.  I'm missing something...

when i said full potential i meant the most practical...i wouldnt want to know what the odds are of one player having 16 cards in hand and the other only having a mayhem.

i arrived at +10 from a first turn mayhem (FTM henceforth...FTK's are official ccg slang, and we use first turn mayhem so much it now deserves its own acronym ) because you get +5 if mayhem is your only card in hand (draw 6 minus the mayhem used) and 11 down to 6 is 5...resulting in +10.

FTM is actually a +17 card advantage - Your opponent goes from 11 to 6, so that's +5 for you. you go from 1 to 6, so that's another + 5. and you laid down 7 cards on your turn, so that's another +7, for a total of +17.

Well, when you conisder it from a sheer drawing standpoint - With a perfect FTM in a 50 card deck with Hopper, I'm suddenly down to 28 non-LS cards to draw. Then on my next turn I draw 3 and am down to 25 - So in the first two turn of the game, I went through half my deck. When you consider that SoG+NJ is 40% of what you need to rescue, and that I am now +17 on my opponent card wise, you begin to see why it is so easy to win with something like that.

Speaking of a first turn Mayhem, it's just under a 20% chance your opponent gets one if they're using a 50 card deck with the hopper.

It's actually around 20.8% - You then have a 9.3% chance of getting it in your next draw. (These numbers hold true for any single card in the deck.)

Since I mentioned the Big 2, here's the probability you have them after a perfect FTM+next turn draw (halfway through deck)
Either one - 55%, Both - 30.3%

Well I switched Herods just to try it and It worked ok but I still don't know how to get the perfect defence.

It doesn't need to be banned, we just need to add intro prep a la TEAMS.

Except in this case, they came out with the protect before they released the broken dominant.
Lampstand of the Sanctuary (Pi)
Type: Artifact • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Protect all cards not in battle from evil Dominants (grim-reaper icon cards). • Identifiers: OT, Tabernacle Item, Temple Item • Verse: Exodus 25:31 • Availability: Priests booster packs (Ultra Rare)
See also:
•      Protect

Who said I counted on it this season?

It doesn't.

I think a FTM is a 11 card advantage.  If you have a 50 card deck with hopper, go first, and get the perfect FTM, after you play Mayhem you will have 7 cards in territory, 1 in discard, and 6 in hand (14 total), and your opponent will have 6 in hand, 0 in discard, and 0 in territory (6 total).  But your opponent also drew 3 when you didn't, so they should have been +3 on you, and instead you are +8 on them, thus an 11 card advantage, IMHO.

And the percentage chance of a FTM with 50 card deck with Hopper is 19.05%, so about 1 out of every 5 games.

Interesting factoid:  If both players have 50 card decks with Hopper and Mayhem, the odds that one player (but not both!) gets a FTM is 30.84%.  If you estimate that a player with a FTM (and their opponent does not get a FTM) wins 95% of the time (and this might even be conservative!), then when two 50 card decks with Hopper/Mayhem are paired against each other, the odds that the game is already decided before it starts is 29.30%.  <-- This is a good of a reason as any as to why Mayhem should be banned - if a game is decided almost 1/3 of the time before it is started because of one card.

Can I ask what math you used to get those percentages? I'm just curious as to why I've got a 21% chance of FTM, and you've got a 19% one.

42 non-LS cards. P(FTM) = 1 - P(No FTM) = 1 - (41/42)*(40/41)*...*(34/35) = 1 - 34/42 = 8/42 = .1905

I agree with jmhartz. RDT, I suspect you had one too many multipliers (i.e. you went down to 33/34, since 41-33 = 8. However, there are 9 numbers between 41 and 33 inclusive). 1-33/42=.214

Did that math come from the CBO? Looks familiar to me. 

Quote from: Professoralstad on August 03, 2011, 10:17:39 AM

42 non-LS cards. P(FTM) = 1 - P(No FTM) = 1 - (41/42)*(40/41)*...*(34/35) = 1 - 34/42 = 8/42 = .1905

I agree with jmhartz. RDT, I suspect you had one too many multipliers (i.e. you went down to 33/34, since 41-33 = 8. However, there are 9 numbers between 41 and 33 inclusive). 1-33/42=.214

Did that math come from the CBO? Looks familiar to me. 

There's absolutely no way that math came from the CBO.  It makes no unrealistic assumptions, is not politically biased, and is 100% provably accurate.