Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


citrus last won the day on October 3 2016

citrus had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

21 You're a random

1 Follower

About citrus

  • Rank
    Brave Heart

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

584 profile views
  1. Paleozoic - Deck Discussion

    It probably is now, given all the BTH and TT and Solemms that will probably be running around. That said Nightmare is probably still worth keeping in, even though the ban list is such a big shake-up. In the early weeks, people probably try to stick with Pendulums, try to experiment with Qli (lol), and whatever else. I hate the idea of playing into TT. BTH is not so bad, since your first Summon in blind match-up is probably Toad, but TT ruins my day. Trunade may be side staple, or main depending on where the other decks go.
  2. I can do it, the logic will just take more time to figure out.
  3. Strictly speaking the program doesn't do "complicated" calculations because the end result of resolving draw effects is the same, but I can implement some kind of balancer for Desires (e.g. reduce occurrence probability to compensate for banishing all Garnets). Generalized searching is not implemented, but the program can treat searchers as the combo pieces that they search for (e.g. treat E-Call as Shadow Mist and Bubbleman at the same time). Shuffle and redraw effects are not implemented because their resolution is functionally trivial. For instance, the entire outcome space of resolving Reload or Magical Mallet consists entirely of ally hands that could have opened Reload or Magical Mallet, except without Reload or Magical Mallet. I can implement this as a check that just removes Reload or Magical Mallet from each hand they're drawn in.
  4. I don't mean to toot my own horn, but please add mine as well: As far as I've tried, none of the existing calculators can do what mine can do. For example, let's say I'm playing Ice Barrier Frogs, and I want to find the probability of opening Toadally Awesome in my first 5 cards, after resolving Upstart Goblin and Pot of Desires. Swap Frog and any water monster fulfills this requirement, but so does any two Ice Barrier cards (from Prior, Medallion, and another L2). Both of these criteria produce the same outcome, but none of the above calculators properly finds the odds of one or both combos occurring. (That is, subtracting the intersection between Swap + Water and 2 Ice Barriers is very messy.) My calculator will tell you that the probability is 57.23%, because it produces every possible hand, counts how many times each unique hand occurs, and finds how many of the unique hands contain one or more of either criteria (Swap + Water or 2 Ice Barrier) so there's no double counting. It then divides the total occurrence of all unique criteria-meeting hands by the total occurrence of all unique hands to provide the true probability. My calculator can also print out all possible unique hands into a neat text file, although it takes some to do while resolving draw effects in its current implementation. Its current use is also a bit difficult if you're not familiar with programming, but I think it has very high functionality.
  5. I can't seem to edit the original post, so this post will contain the update. Latest revision: http://pastebin.com/JrpdTS6T Use this script to: Generate all possible unique hands for a particular deck list (learn decks, find unplayable hands, etc.) Calculate true probability of opening specific combos (test ratios, measure consistency, etc.) To use the script, you'll need R v3.3.1: https://www.r-project.org/ An editing environment helps. I use RStudio: https://www.rstudio.com/products/rstudio/ INSTRUCTIONS Write your deck list in a *.txt like so: http://pastebin.com/M7Pb1b8a (quantity, tab, card name with any identifiers) In the example, I used [W] to denote WATER monsters. Place the deck list file in the same directory as the script Open the script and set the working directory to that of the script Write your criteria like so: crit <- list(c('crit1', 'crit2',...), c('crit3', 'crit4',...),...) Replace the text crit1 with a word in a card name or an identifier you wrote in the deck list (keep the quotes). Each set of criteria is enclosed within each c(). You may use one, multiple, or zero sets of criteria. If you use zero criteria, the script will simply return your deck list. Using multiple criteria is useful for evaluating the total occurrence of different combos that produce similar fields. Source the script and call deckr() with the file name of your deck list (in quotes) and crit (without quotes). CAUTIONS If the script is instructed to write readable hands (hwrt = T) while resolving draw effects (dres = T) and your deck list contains any draw-two/three effects (e.g. Pot of Desires/Duality), the program will take a very long time to execute. My computer (8 GB RAM, 2.5 GHz) took roughly 2 hours 22 minutes to resolve Pot of Desires alone under these conditions, without any other programs running. Changing the number of cards to draw to any higher values may also produce similar effects. For this reason, setting the script to write readable hands (hwrt = T) is unadvised. OUTPUTS The script produces a list-class object that you can subset with the following indices: [[1]] deck list [[2]] list of criteria evaluated (if criteria provided) [[3]] occurrence rate of criteria evaluated (if criteria provided) IMPROVEMENTS Reduced runtime (my computer evaluates 2 criteria sets on a 40-card deck in roughly 15 seconds without writing hands) Evaluate multiple criteria simultaneously Resolve most generic draw effects (not just Upstart Goblin) Currently, the script can resolve Chicken Game, Into the Void, Upstart Goblin, Cardcar D, Pot of Desires, Pot of Greed, Card of Demise, Graceful Charity, and Pot of Duality. I haven't added Card Destruction, Dark World Dealings, Dragged Down Into the Grave, or Hand Destruction, but it would be easy to put them in. The script will only resolve OPT effects once (e.g. Pot of Desires) and will resolve non-OPT effects as many times as possible (e.g. Pot of Greed). The script will not include information about cards banished for the cost of Pot of Desires, because it is unnecessary. Every two-card combination in the remaining deck has the same probability of being drawn and every ten-card combination has the same probability of being banished. Because of this, since the script creates all possible hands, the total result of resolving Pot of Desires in every way possible is identical to that of resolving Pot of Greed. FUTURE PLANS Rewrite script in C as an executable for reduced runtime and ease of use Please let me know any questions you have.
  6. Hey guys, I spent the last couple weeks building this R-script: http://pastebin.com/f0xF17rf I don't have much programming experience, so I apologize for this not being wrapped up in a neat executable or web app. Fleshed-out description and instructions are in the pastebin link, but here's the tl;dr. Use this script to: Generate all possible unique hands for a particular deck list (learn decks, find unplayable hands, etc.) Calculate percentages of hands that contain specific combos (test ratios, measure consistency, etc.) Basically a more technical, open-ended variation of Inexorably's consistency programs To use the script, you'll need R v3.3.1: https://www.r-project.org/ An editing environment helps. I use RStudio: https://www.rstudio.com/products/rstudio/ After you're set-up: Type up your deck list in the correct format Open the script or paste the code into a new script Set the working directory to where your deck list is Source the script Have fun The tool produces a list of five objects: [[1]] a data frame copy of the deck list [[2]] a matrix of all unique hands by row (readable if hgen = TRUE) [[3]] a vector of the number of times each unique hand repeats (readable if hgen = TRUE) [[4]] the vector of criteria passed to 'crit' for criteria testing [[5]] the percentage of all possible hands that pass criteria The results of [[2]] and [[3]] will not be readable (useful) if hgen != TRUE, because the tool will pre-filter the deck list and set any cards that don't meet criteria to <NA> before generating hands. (This saves considerable run time when the deck size is large and the deck contains a high proportion of unique cards--run at only 1 or 2 copies.) The idea behind the program as a whole is to save time and maximize accuracy by avoiding simulation. For example, given a 40-card deck, the number of maximum unique hands is given by choosing 5 from 40, which is only 658,008 hands (assuming all 40 cards in deck are unique). Mike Steinman simulated 1,000,000 hands for his Monarch deck, which doesn't make any sense, because his simulation only gives him an approximation of a true statistic, when he could've performed fewer operations and just learned that statistic instead. To be fair, just drawing 1 extra card increases the maximum number hands to 3,838,380 (e.g. for going second), but I have optimized the program to minimize run time. If you're not running anything else, and you have 4GB of RAM, it shouldn't take more than a few minutes at most. For stats guys, the percentages are p >= x, not p == x, which means the criteria-passing hands may contain more than one copy of a particular combo piece (e.g. if you're testing for hands that open high scale and low scale Pendulums, the passing hands may contain more than one high or low scale). These probabilities are, then, basically useless for calculating percentages of joint events that aren't mutually exclusive. There was a previous implementation that allowed the option to choose between >= and ==, but it was messy, cumbersome, and easy to break. Feel free to ask any questions. Let me know if anything breaks. Please use and enjoy.
  7. Kozmo - Discussion

    Can someone explain the strength of Star Eater in the mirror match?  Is it just the 3200 that lets it run over Destroyer and Eclipser?  It's pretty cool that it basically dodges Solemn Strike, but, unless I'm missing something, Destroyer can still pop this outside of battle, right?
  8. On a side note, regarding how bumping your deck from 40 to 41, 42, etc. will affect your draws:   Let's assume we have: 40-card deck 5-card hand only 1 copy of a target card (3 copies in deck, maybe something like Instant Fusion) The probability of this happening is 30.11%.  If we bump up to 41 cards in deck, that slips to 29.55%.  Going up to 42 cards, that drops to 29.00%.  The percentage drop is about 1.86% from 40 to 41, and roughly the same from 41 to 42.  If instead we consider drawing at least 1 copy of a particular card (maybe something like RotA): the probability out of 40 cards is 33.76%; out of 41 cards is 33.02%; and out of 42 cards is 32.32%.  The percentage drop in this case is about 2.2% from 40 to 41, and roughly the same from 41 to 42.   In both cases of considering exactly 1 and at least 1 copy draw of the target card, the marginal loss of consistency for each additional card in thedeck is roughly 2% per card.  This may not signifcantly affect the particular outcome of a single starting hand, but the effects will show over many repeated trials.  At large events like YCS, where you can draw up to 54 hands, the loss of consistency will produce pretty pronounced results, even though 54 isn't a very large sample size.  (I don't remember how to check sample size for testing hypergeometric trials.)   It stands to reason that given two identical decks--one with a standard 40-card build and another with the same 40-card build, but an additional power card--the slimmer build will be more consistent.  That's not to say it'll necessarily win more, however.  I can't think of any specific examples right off the bat, but I imagine there are cases where the 41st card offers such a strong advantage when it is drawn that the increased power balances out--or even outweighs--lost consistency.   This doesn't always apply to going the other way, that is going from 40 down to 39, 38, etc. as discussed by previous posts, since there are additional advantages to playing Upstart Goblin aside from simply playing a deck with fewer cards.  Let's assume that you have 3 copies of a target card left in your deck after drawing 4 "real" cards.  The probability of the fifth draw being that target card is the same regardless of whether you're hard drawing it from a 39-card deck (3/35) or using Upstart Goblin in a 5-card hand to draw from a 40-card deck (3/35).  The benefit lies in using search cards to manipulate your deck before your fifth "real" draw.   In the 39-card deck, you do not have the ability to manipulate your deck before your draw the fifth card, because you must draw five cards at the beginning of the game.  In the 40-card deck with Upstart Goblin in the opening hand, let's say you also drew a search card that can search some other card.  If the search card successfully resolves before Upstart Goblin, you've reduced the remaining cards in the deck by 1--to 34 cards.  The probability of drawing the target card with Upstart Goblin then increases to 3/34.  This is a 2.94% percentage gain over hard-drawing the target card in a 39-card deck, and the gain increases with the number of search cards among the other 4 cards in hand.  (Four searchers + Upstart Goblin drops the remain deck size to 31 cards, which results in a 12.90% percentage gain.)   It seems to follow that a 43-card deck with abundant searchers and 3 Upstart Goblin would actually be more consistent than an identical 40-card deck without Upstart Goblin, but I haven't done the math, so I can't verify this conclusion.   If I'm just completely talking out of my ass, please let me know. :x   EDIT: For milling strategies (e.g. Lightsworn, Burning Abyss, Infernoid, etc.), the analogue seems to be Minerva, Lightsworn Maiden. Since Minerva mills an additional card when she is milled, searching before milling Minerva should improve milling consistency.
  9. i think the tcg and ocg lists are going to converge

    If OCG moves a set two months back, and TCG moves the same set up one month, then they'd be on the same release schedule.  In the meantime, OCG can release some kind of Kozmo+lulz set that includes all of the TCG exclusives.  I wouldn't expect anything like this to happen until maybe Series 10 ends, though, since Dark Illusions (series 10, set 1) has already been announced for April in OCG and Shining Victories (series 9, set 8) hasn't been given a TCG release yet.   If the alignment starts from series 11, that gives OCG and TCG a fresh place to start that's not bound to a TV series (assuming that Arc-V lasts two series, although 5D's and ZEXAL both lasted 1.5 series).  This will also give TCG some time to iron out the anime's syndication issues.  Ideally, Japan and the world would release the anime at the same pace so that it'll align best with the product, but that seems logistically difficult, even though dubbing is probably accounted for somewhere in the budget anyway.
  10. This is what it was at the last time it was hyped. The common print will stop it from going much higher.   Noob question: Where does the hype come from?  Did it top somewhere?
  11. Qliphort - Discussion

    Bumping the thread, since I didn't see this mentioned in the thread so far.   I think I know why Scout was hit to 1, even though Konami decided to ban Towers too.  The Luster Pendulum and Scout interaction is kind of ridiculous.  You do this: Activate Scout and search (+1) Activate Luster, pop Scout, add Scout (+0) Activate Scout again and search (+1) In terms of card economy, this is a straight +2, which it's probably the best opening the deck has ever had, because you get to start with established scales and five cards in hand, instead of just whatever Monolith gives you in the end phase.  I don't recall any deck lists that topped with this combo, but it doesn't seem like it would've been uncompetitive.  If Scout ever comes back to more than one and Luster is still around, this might be worth trying out.
  12. PSY-Frame - Discussion

    Isn't it a problem to main deck a card that you can only play when you already have other plays?  You're playing a deck where having those other plays in the first place is not consistent.  If I were to open with Vanity's and brick, I'd rather that Vanity's be something else that can fix my hand, rather than be a blank.  Overload + Vanity's + Omega/Spark/some other synchro is a really strong position, but even getting to that point in the first place, especially with Dragonpit and other S/T running around, just doesn't seem to be worth consistency issues.   Maybe my logic is incorrect.  It's the best I can do based on my experience playing this deck so far.
  13. In any case, eBay is showing that people are buying them up.  I have no idea what could be making it good right now, but might as well take advantage of the going price.
  14. I really don't want to defend her, but I think might make some people feel better (or worse).   If Julia is the NA Judge Manager, is it safe to assume there's an EU Judge Manager as well?  And if there is, is it possible that there is some sort of Head Judge Manager above Julia and the hypothetical EU Judge Manager?  If this guy exists, he could be withholding the reason why NA/EU ruling discrepancies exist, and Julia really doesn't know.  I still agree that she shouldn't say anything when she doesn't know/can't say the answer, but this does create the possibility that at least some of the frustration directed at her should be aimed further up the chain.
  15. PSY-Frame - Discussion

    Escalation is actually pretty clever, since your PFs immediately become tribute fodder.  You can even feasibly run typically "bad" floodgates like Angel O7, Vanity's Ruler, etc.  The fact that Escalation feeds Planter is good too.  My concern is still consistency; seeing Escalation without a monster floodgate would really suck.