so changing numbers is out of the question. 40/20 50/25 60/30 100/50 sorry my idea is obviously bad and won't work edit sorry i am an idiot i do not know better and thought to try to make it not a buff not a nerf i should have known this has been put forth before, but since i am an idiot i don't know any better. feel free to be mean to me. i deserve it. people like me should never join into a meaningful discussion. sorry. i won't say anymore
People are idiots or trolls is my guess. At least it makes it obvious who you can disregard in a meaningfull discussion
Oh, please, I would dare to say I invented the whole over-dramatic victim routine, if it were not because people would accuse of being, well, over-dramatic. As for your suggestion, the number is not even the main problem, the overall problem is the chain of events required in order to take a proper advantage of this 'bonus', specially compared to other factions. Like I said, factions like FS, or SP gain nora passively (zero effort on their part, other than playing the game), while some others like UD of ST gain an edge in battle. Your proposal requires the FW player to kill another unit without any advantage in combat (unlike say SL), and then require to pick the nora globe, something that can be neutered by the opponent through abilities like soul collection or the relic counterbalance. Just for a moment think about it: counterbalance made the nora globes picked by opponent worth 0. What is the 1,000,000% of 0? Surprise! Zero. 3 factions, FW, KF and SL would have the tools to completely neuter your hypothetical bonus. And this lead me to the other point: lets suppose we remove soul collection and counterbalance from the game forever and ever. A FW units defeats an UD unit, disregarding the damage bonus UD have. The FW unit picks the globe. Now what? The UD opponent is already dead. Save the nora for the next battle? Most skilled players already do that: deploy champions, use them strategically and save as many nora as possible. If they loss the font, they have nora in the bank to made a come-back, otherwise, they can blow the nora on a power-turn to finish the battle. (Obviously, I'm simplifying a lot) In other words, your proposal does not change this basic pattern for the most part, it becomes only relevant after winning early battles. It would help to win a match that the FW player was already winning. For that purpose, it may just not exists as the battle was already determined. And at the other hand, if the FW player loses a battle for the font, he would have no champions to pick the nora globes, so once again the bonus is plainly non existent. The amount is basically irrelevant. It would have to be ridiculously high to be worth, and even in that scenario, most of the time it would be pointless.
Yobanchi--I think the synergy between extra draw (significant on turn 1 is more important that huge by turn 5) and decreased cool down of dead champs is obvious. You can't get away with running 1 broken bones if broken bones is a champ you want turns 1-3 most games even though it cools down as fast as it does. However, even at current cooldown or faster, many of the midrange bgs will not and do not take much advantage of our faction bonus. A card draw advantage is useful to all decks but is not obnoxious. Coupled with boon of the undead and DMZ i think the whole thing is strong. note: I've observed something like 40 games in the last week, the only faction i consistently seeing scrying down to sub 50 is, go figure, FW. I think this is a good move! 1. Countersuggestion: autoreveal 2 CHAMP runes on turn 1 or similar 2. Chance of drawing a 1 of champ by turn x, see attached excel document that let’s you play with the numbers Model 1: draw+scry each turn (normal) Model 2: normal + draw/turn Model 3: normal + 3 draws turn 1 Model 4: normal + 3 draws turn 1 + draw/turn therafter Chances of drawing a one of by turn X Read out: turn/model 1/model 2/…/model 4 Turn Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 1 17% 20% 27% 27% 2 23% 30% 33% 37% 3 30% 40% 40% 47% 4 37% 50% 47% 57% 5 43% 60% 53% 67% 6 50% 70% 60% 77% 7 57% 80% 67% 87% 8 63% 90% 73% 97% 9 70% 100% 80% 100% 10 77% 100% 87% 100% Won't let me post an excel file, but essentially you need to use the hypergeometric distribution, let me know if you have questions.
thats one helluva sexy model. AND ur idea's a beaut. FW can now focus on spells and ghey Essence Drains by packing in more spells in their arsenal, with maybe fewer units (that hardly dies, but just teleports around or stay on its 4-7 range). Auto-Reveal 2x champs seems really fair. However, I see the problem with playing REALLY few champ runes, limiting them to 8-9 space moving units. This would really push draw-win ideas. Serkan, 2 Lich King, 2 Utterdark TeleportEntangle Guy, Not Sure on Others. but I mean with that kinda speed, there is a slight problem of ALWAYS getting 8-9SPD units on their first turn. Its kinda....annoying enough to even think about it. Then again, I got no bright idea. so .... not sure.
!!Please see Graphic!! Assumptions/Facts: 1. 4 initial runes playing first, 5 playing second 2. 1 scry first turn, thus 5 initial runes playing first, 6 playing second 3. Will assume we scry each turn + 2 free reveals per turn = 3/turn (note: with no help, we reveal out entire decks in 9-10 turns) 4. First proposition set is a flat X free runes tune 1 5. Second proposition is an additional X runes/turn (including turn 1) 6. Third proposition is an additional X champ reveals turn 1 (synergizes digging to our 1 of champs early) Proposition: Study chance of seeing a particular 1-of by turn x. Results: Please see attached picture that shows graphs over a variety of ranges to gage impact. Picture is for going first (5 runes on turn 1 base, 3 extra a turn thereafter base). Varied the number of champs (N=15,12,7) and the number of champs of interest (n=1,2,5) to examine the propositions (and normal). Analysis: We see that in all cases the 3 champ draw gives the greatest advantage before turn 3, the 3 initial draws gives the second greatest. At the case of n=1, N=15, which is typical BG, the 3 champ extra gives an 18% increase in seeing a one-of compared to no bonus. You can see that this bonus is magnified as the number of champs total decreases. With n=2 N=15 the probability is doubled from 30% to 60% and with n=2 and N=12 it increases to 65% on TURN 1—this means that the 3 bonus champ draws has a very significant effect, you are much more likely to see your one-of champions earlier and take advantage of our faction bonus. Another way to think of it, say you want to find your serkan early as the go-to power of your DB BG, but you can’t afford to cut champs too low because you need to get several out there to..well..die. So, this is probably an n=1 N=12 scenario. Using the 3 champ draw bonus you have a >50% chance of seeing serkan by turn 3. However, you need to wait until turn 8 to have a 90% chance. With the a draw/turn bonus you draw your whole deck by turn 7. Whereas, if you played 2 of a champ in a 15 champ deck with no bonus you would have a 94% chance of seeing at least 1 of those 2-ofs by turn 7. However, as the column on the right shows, when we are talking about a significant number of runes with redundant effects, such as 5 champs that can get 8 speed, the bonus champ draw leads to exceedingly consistent games, 90%+ of seeing at least 1 every opening hand. However, it is unclear that this advantage is significant, can anyone break this consistency? The 8 speed example seems week, as we could easily construct a KF deck now that has 90% consistency of 8 speed turn 1. Conclusion: The bonus champ draw is significantly more impactful than bonus draw or bonus draw/turn at powering out a or 2 of before turn 4 (chance of seeing them). However, if the 1-of is a rune that you NEED to see in a certain matchup, the +1 draw/turn accelerates the 90%+ likelihood by about 2 turns. Ultimately there is no perfect answer, but it seems to me that the bonus champ draw will provide more consistent access to 1-of champs and champs in general without allowing for too much abuse AND without powering general good-stuff like better access to spells (marginal effect due to deck thinning). Method: 1. As mentioned above, when you can construct a series of n “draws without replacement” from a deck of size N where there are K cards that are considered special and you want to know the probability of having drawn k of them, the function is called the hypergeometric distribution. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergeometric_distribution) Example: Probability of drawing exactly 1 of a card you have 2 of in your BG after you have drawn 10 cards is 45%. Or, in symbols, P(k=1) = hypergeo(k=1,n=10,K=2,n=30) 2. Second concept is that of mutually exclusive events, which means that event 1 (say flipping a coin and it coming up heads) CANNOT happen at the same time as event 2 (that same flip ending up tails). It means that the probability of E1 and E2 happening is zero. Of E1 and E2 (and E3… etc) are all the possible events that could happen then. Probability of E1 + Probability of E2 = P(E1) + P(E2) = 1 =100% Example: if you are playing 2 of a card in a deck and you want to know the probability of having drawn at least 1 in the first 10 cards. There are 3 possible mutually exlusive events: E0 you have drawn 0, E1 you have drawn 1 , and E2 you have drawn 2. Probability of drawning at least 1 = P(E1) + P(E2) which we can find from above using hypergeo Or P(E0)+P(E1)+P(E2) = 1 thus P(E1) + P(E2) = 1 – P(E0), which, again, can be calculated using hypergeo 3. Another necessary concept is the conditional probability, which states that the probability of two events happening is the probability of one of them happening times the probability of the other one happening given that the first has happened. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_probability) In symbols: P(E1 And E2) = P(E1)*P(P1 given E2) Synthesis: Probability by turn X of drawing at least 1 of a champion given that we are running c of that champion and that we are running C total champions in a bg of 30 runes where we draw D champions on turn one BEFORE we draw out hands, then we draw a hand of 5 turn 1 then draw 2 cards per/turn after (draw + scry). We can quickly see that this is two distinct actions, first a draw of some number of champions (d) from a deck the size of the number of champions (C), some number of which could be one of the desired champions (c of those). There are several events that could happen here, we could get 0, 1, 2 etc. Then there is a second actions where see how many of the champs of interest we find given that there are a number of champs of interest LEFT in the deck after the first action from a deck that is the size of the number of cards LEFT after the initial pull. We could find 1, 2, 3.. etc. We want to know the probability of drawing at least 1 in either action which we can see from above by the definition of mutually exclusive events is 1 – Probability of drawing 0 in action 1 and drawing 0 in action 2 which we will write: P(success) = 1 - Probability(E1 and E2) = 1 – Probability (E1)*Probability(E2 given E1) Where the probability of E1 is hypergeometric (0,D,c,C) And P(E1 given E2)= hypergeometric(0,cards drawn by turn X not including the free champ draws,c,C-D). in other words, it is a pull from a deck where D cards have been removed but there are still c champions of interest.
Considering the fact that most current deck runs 15~ champ, the chance of having no champ reveal on turn 1 for 1st player is 0.5^4 ~= 0.06 ~= 6%, 2nd player, 0.5^5 ~= 0.03 ~= 3%. Assuming an three additional draw were provided for full faction FW, to achieve the same champ reveal consistency of above mentioned example (0.06 for 1st player, 0.03 for second), FW would only need 10 champions in deck (1-(10/30))^7 ~= 0.058....~= 6% and as for playing second, the chance of no champ reveal becomes ~= 4%. So in theory, disregarding the player's inclination to draw a specific champion, adding 3 reveals at the start of the game allows ff FW decks to have 5 rune slot worth of flexibility. Additionally, considering adding additionally two reveal at the start of the game, allows ff FW player to achieve the same 6% chance of not drawing a champ as starting player when running 11 champs, so the 1 additional reveal at 3 starting reveal have an marginal gain of allowing ff FW player to have 1 more slot flexibility than 2 card reveal at beginning. Just for the sake of it, 1 additional card reveal at the start of the game allows a player to run 13 champs to attain 6% chance of not drawing a champ as start player. Combining the above mentioned thinking with jsat's charts of 1 of champ/2 of champ 12 total champ, assuming 3 additional reveal, it shows that 3 additional reveal at the start of the game only provides an marginal 10% increased chance of drawing a specific champion that's 1x include and about 13% for 2x champs. As game goes past 8 round, that 3 additional reveal shows no effect on champ reveals. All in all, whether additional 2~3 rune reveal at the beginning of the game is appropriate to add to current fw bonus depends on how much is 4~5 deck slots worth nora wise?
spirodela, that is a great way to look at the relative effectiveness of these schemes--how many champs can we cut (flexability) and retain the same effectiveness. note* all data for playing first, difference is one card. measures of effectiveness: 1. chance of not drawing a champ at all 2. average number of champs drawn 3. chance of seeing a one of vs a two of see attached for data on 1 and 2, prior post for data on 3. 1. for normal scheme, 15 champs, you have a 2.1% chance of seeing no champ. with free champ you have a 0%, which is a considerable advantage. at 11 champs and 2 free draws you have a 2.5% chance. 2. for normal you average 2.5, for 2 bonus draws and 11 champs you get 2.57, for 2 free champ draws you get 3.5. 3. for normal and a two-of you have a 31% chance of seeing them it turn 1 and a greater that 50% by turn 3. for a one of-champ, for 2 bonus draws and 11 champs it is 22% chance and turn 4 and for 2 free champ draws and 11 champs it is 32% and turn 3. analysis: if you are just thinking about it from perspective of seeing the same number of champs and same chance of being sol turn 1, then 2 bonus champs is comparable to 15 champs and you can see this change to fw resulting in 4 bonus slots. however, this REQUIRES consistency in a fewer set of champs, which, from a deck building perspective means we still don't get to take advantage of the quick turn around on cheap champs--we just won't see them still. for 2 bonus champ draws we perform better than 15 champ decks at average numbers of champs and 100% chance of turn 1 deploy. it also gives us comparable chance of finding a *2 of champ early as a normal bg. however, as you can see from the two-of results with free champ draws, it also makes out starts very very consistent, which might be a really big/annoying by-product. ***in other words, free draws keeps us the same if you treat all champs the same (averages). free champ draws let's us play a 1-of like a 2-of. both let us cut 4 champs. but free champ draws is subject to possible exploitation, as it can let us be way more consistent*** what do you gentlemen think? let's come up with one answer and advocate it.
O yeah, i totally forgot that I should have used an hypergeometric distribution. But just my two cent, guaranteed champ reveal is rather problematic, as seen when 30 rune dock was first introduced, any player is gurantteed champ reveal within 2 rounds. This has led to decks that only contain 2~3 champ and the mechanics was subsequently changed. Going back to the argument laid out in the old post this current one, the reasons that a portion of the player base ( active forum member/cares enough about fw (ultimately I suspect a small subsection of the player base)) was that the fw bonus is backloaded, and have the high probability of being moot on expansive champions. Assuming the average game last 14 rounds (data provided earlier in the post, which I'm just gonna blindly trust cause I don't have the analysis) that means, to trigger current FW bonus, a champ have to die at 14 - i turn, i = its cost bracket, ascending. For example, a 75~89 cost champ has to die before round 9 to allows it to come back before game ends. In reality, it should die much earlier, because you would want the champ to do something before game ends. Currently, the themes that rips the most benefit from the cool down reduction are cheap meat bgs(as mentioned by scarlet red earlier(skeletons/zombies)) because they naturally run a large amount of cheap champs (cost < 74). However, other theme deck do not enjoy the same amount of benefit, unless its tailored to include equal portion of cheap champions (in certain cases it makes the deck sub optimal due to the fact that for certain themes, appropriate cheap champs are scarse). My conclusion is that by allowing for 2 additional rune reveal at the start of the game, it provides the player an choice in deck construction, if they want champ draw consistency (theme bg lynch pinned on certain champ/champ number/combination of certain champ), they can still run 15+ champs, it would just make their open hand marginally more consistent. However, more importantly, additional 2 reveals just allows for other type of bg that are not lynch pinned on certain champ/champ number/combination of certain champ to be able to design its champ roster to include fewer champ and still not running out of champs due to the actual fw bonus. (in this case to actually take advantage of the fw bonus, the champ roster has to be some what carefully designed to ensure that at most of the time, you will have a champ to deploy through proper utilization of fw bonus). One last point, the marginal increase in champ draw/specific champ draw by having 1+ reveal also serves to stop split shenanigans.
ITT: Sorry, but definitely most of what you said this last posts is beyond my level. Do you have a version for dummies whether additional reveals as bonus is a good (as in balanced) or a bad (broken) thing?
short answer: is it op? guranteed champ reveal have the potential to be, additional 2 rune reveal don't is it good? yes, if allowing for more deck design diversity and more rigrous champ roster selection to actually take benefit is a good thing, then yes. would it rip up meta? probably not, seeing most of the benefit are up to 4 possible non champ slot to still consistently draw a champ at the start of the game with 2 additional draws. a more interesting question to look into would be average # of champ deployed per game, what's the probability of accumulating said # champ each turn with the different draw schemes,if jsat don't have time to do it I will upload the result later tonight once my computer frees up.
tldr: this-- the numbers: just show us that with 2 bonus draws, an 11 champ deck behaves like a 15 champ deck! this is pretty big, fw has a bunch of spells and such we would like to fit more of. bonus champ draw let's us play a one-of with the same consistency of a two-of in an 11 champ deck. however, 2 free champ draws is subject to abusee. conclusion: advocating for 2 free champ draws is debatable, too abusable perhaps. advocating for two free draws is definite benefit, but does not help us find our one of much faster on average. either way helps us with a FRONTLOADED advantage--more consistency/flexability in design. Overall thoughts on card draw as fw theme: i think card draw is a subtle, real advantage that does enable the cheap meat option. we would need to push for free champ draw for it to be really impactful and help decks that just splash cheap meat in. if we did that, you could play 3 cheap beaters and have a huge chance of seeing them early in the game! this would be cool and really help define fw as a faction with a distinctive, sacrificial style.
oh, spirodela, unless your average champ cost is like 50, you will be nora limited not champ limited for all possible turns assuming you get one font turn 0/1 and hold it all game.
i just thought of two obvious alternative suggestions that we could flesh out. sacrificial style: early and sufficient access to cheap beaters with interesting but limited effects that can be thrown at oponent for advantage (with understanding that they will die) assume our goal is this: enable the sacrificial theme in fw as a SUBCOMPONENT of all fw decks, something that is accessible. proposal: we keep current theme bonus and add a bonus that gives us access to, you guessed it, our cheap meat. specific mechanism--auto champ reveal: that reveals mora as you have more. this works because it significantly ups our chance of seeing cheap meat early. we would come up with brackets to prevent abuse: 0-4 champs: 0 free reveals 5-9 champs: 1 free reveal 10-14 champs: 2 free reveals 15 champs: 3 free reveals specific mechanism 2--auto cheap meat reveal: if you play cheap meat you get it. we could do it so you start with all of it under a certain nora cost, or we could graduate it as above: 2a: all under X nora cost (50?) 2b: cound all champs under 50 nora 0-1: 0 free 2-3: reveal 1 4+ champs: reveal 3
All of this was allready covered in detail in the old discussion on the old forum, but its nice to see someone do it all over again so new people can see it
I personally would like to see the faction bonus to promote deck design diversity in FW without directly powering our champs rather than pigeon hole it into an more specific play style. Additionally, I think the bonus should also be passive, or responsive rather than active just to keep in line with other bonuses. All in all, i think, there should be some variation of CD reduction and card draw that could allow for such a bonus.
Remeber that KISS is allso a good principle. Hence I will once again advocate the: Keep as it and add +2 reveals at start of the game. It´s simple. It works together and its relatively easy to instate.
tldr: out faction bonus, boon of the undead, and champs like corruptor show that we are the faction that harvests the power of death to fuel our spells and that death is a small obstacle to us--we can reanimate out champs. Current bonus=complete failure, only powering a very small sub-theme (cheap meat). Card draw proposition is significant and probably balanced, but out of character, dull, and not very good at even powering cheap meat. My countersuggestion is to give us a bonus partly between death harvest and soulharvester--on any champions dead we gain the greater of X and Y * nora cost of champion or similar. However, for some unintelligble reason, SP already has half of this. This makes no sense whatsoever to me and is stupid. They should lose that benefit and get something small to compensate, we should get that benefit. Whether we give up boons extra nora capture and maybe our current bonus (though it is so small who cares? only 3 champs in whole game really, lichling, guard, zombie..maybe broken bones) is almost irrelevant. BansheeX, let's take a step back and review: 1. FW has a bonus that was intended to give us the flavor that we get power from death, that we are undead and therefore come back soon, and (implicitly) that out champions (or some subset of them) are expendable. 2. Anyone with a two eyes can tell that the bonus isn't giving much currently. (there are probably a dozen quotes in this thread that are unimpeachable, well said etc, i mean, even DB hardly uses any cheap meat) 3. The only possible benefit of current bonus is that we can run a 1 of of a cheap meat as a two of, but the problem with this is that we would need to see it early in order to take real advantage. 4. We start designing fixes around enabling the current bonus, which we all admit didn't do much in the first place. 5. We end by concluding/arguing about specific rune draws as an enabler, and whether the 2 rune draw really enables the theme or we need something more targeted. 5a. My numbers prove that two random draws will NOT enable the 1-of cheap meat, but will obviously provide us a significant advantage in consistency/design space 5b. You will say this "bonus is fair." 6. Maybe it get's implemented in one form and then GUESS WHAT--FW becomes the faction whose flavorful bonus is...consistency of draw?? wtf! we are about death! sacrificial style! unbelievably cool and powerful lich kings, hoardes of zombies and skeles thrown in shambling and creaking mass at the living! In short, we started from the premise that the FW bonus doesn't work and sucks. We ended with something out of character, not-interesting. Let's start from scratch! Our faction bonus and our general faction concept tells us that, in fact, we are about death. I think our faction bonus also suggests that we are already (for the most part) dead, and therefore we can be raised again more quickly. (f I think boon of the undead was supposed to capture an obvious theme: the undead benefit when the living die. those are raw parts and maybe the powerful FW magic can harness the power of death as nora--think corruptor, dead eater, etc. What does this suggest about our playstyle: it means we ARE backloaded by definition, we require grind, our trick is to stabilize then grind then win. That sounds like an army of undead to me, but I think many want us to be just another "goodstuff" faction with specific spells. Some cool suggestions from this thread/random ideas based on "death fuels out power" 1. deploy gives a reveal: in the vein of the cheap meat thing, but I don't think it fits our flavor 2. death gives a reveal: meets out general theme of death gives us x, but it is backloaded and slow, and also doesn't make too much sense--why would a dead skeleton let us cast mobi? 3. Our death gives us nora: makes complete sense to me, is obviously in theme (several examples already exist), is powerful for sure but backloaded and centered around sacrificial style but WITHOUT requiring sacrificial style to MEAN cheap meat. I think we could start with the current refund bonus of certain, other factions and add a modest number on top. rational: their bonus is frontloaded, obviously way more powerful as it gives them tempo. This number could be crafted in such a way as to give some minimum for any champ (say 5 for summons) that has a limiting behavior of something like .2 * nora cost or similar. 4. Any death gives us nora, maybe min 5 to 10%. this means that we are dark wizards capturing the essence of death and rechanneling it to fuel out spells. seems cool, flavorful, backloaded. 5. death is not death to the undead: when out champs die we can recast from the grave for something like 30% deduction. This champion has a status of "reassembled" or something, and when it dies the second time we have to wait out the full cooldown. 6. Someone suggested that we have a built in death benefit where one champions death fuels another, this seems cool but too situational. It seems that 4 is the coolest, most flavorful idea. It certainly is powerful and people will ***** and moan up a storm, but you have to compare the numbers to fs and sp.
