Jump to content
ACP

Road of the King by Patrick Hoban

Recommended Posts

Patrick Hoban    6363
10 minutes ago, ACP said:

@Patrick Hoban: You realize that the phrase "the rate of power" and "the probability that a play works" are two completely different things, yes? One of them is an actual thing, and the other is total nonsense. If you meant "the probability that a play works" then you should have said that in the text. I get the basic idea behind what you're trying to say, but you explained it very poorly in the text. Words mean things.

 

Also, judging by your response, I don't think you really get my point behind matchups. The holy grail of matchup theory is the deck that you've just described, the one that is straight up better than everything. I don't care if it's more powerful or more consistent. I just care that it wins.

 

It's not nonsense when I explicitly tell you what it means in the context of the book. 

 

We both want to win more, but saying "I just care that it wins" doesn't tell you how it wins. Consistency and power do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patrick Hoban    6363
7 minutes ago, ACP said:

But to continue, even if in the book you had explained it in a way that made logical sense, I still don't think it's the best way of explaining why certain decks are better than others. Power and consistency aren't quantifiable terms, and even we sat down and defined it in a way that everyone could understand, I don't think it would serve well as a tool for future use. If we took all of the best players in the world and had them discuss which decks in the current format have the best combination of power and consistency, it would be very difficult for anyone to convince other people that their position is flawed. Whereas matchups are a variable that can be quantified and directly translated into prize support. If two people are arguing about which deck wins a certain matchup, they can sit down and figure out who's right. Whereas if I tell someone that Kozmo has the best combination of power and consistency, it is very difficult to substantiate my argument.

 

Matchup percentages, even when given a large enough sample to be fairly accurate, may say who wins, but they don't say why it wins. Power and consistency do and that's more useful for building the best deck in the room.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»ACP    33417

I feel like I'm experiencing deja vu, as this is all very similar to the conversation that I had with @Monahan awhile back.

 

Defining consistency as the rate of power doesn't make sense. The way that you've defined power, it's not something that you can take the rate of. The way you used the word "consistency" throughout the text that was confusing and did not at all match your definition. I understand that when you wrote "the rate of power" on the page that you really meant to write something else. My criticism is that you did not explain yourself well.

 

Consistency and power doesn't tell me how something wins. In the text you failed to demonstrate how it does. There is no way of proving how it affects the winrate of a deck since power and consistency are unquantifable metrics. You basically expect me to take it on faith in a reverse-casual sort of sense. "Well this deck wins a lot, so it must be the most powerful and consistent."

 

You did not outline an algorithm (neither formally nor informally) where someone can take your definitions and apply them to achieve a measurable result. Say I have a bunch of decklists in front of me that I'm considering whether to take one to an event. From reading your chapter, I don't know how to determine which deck has the best combination of power and consistency in an abstract sense. The only thing I can do is test them against each other, which then goes back to matchup theory. Perhaps if you listed an explicit example of all of the steps that you took from start to finish to objectively determine a deck's power and consistency we might be having a different conversation.

 

Like I'm not trying to be a douchebag but I feel like we're kind of butting heads because I come from the field of hard sciences where everything needs to neat, formal, consistent, and clear whereas you come from the field of social science where you're allowed to do a bit more "hand waving" so to speak.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patrick Hoban    6363

Yeah, I'm sure that's why we're disagreeing too. 

 

"Consistency and power doesn't tell me how something wins."

 

My definition of power was the impact something successful had on the game. Having more power makes intuitive sense as being better than less power, because it means you'll have more impact on the game.

 

Consistency is all about making that impact successful. It also makes intuitive sense that you would want something that had a big impact on the game to be successful, thus it's clearly good to increase consistency. 

 

And the book goes on to talk about how to maximize consistency and power in your decks. EX) Running fewer cards increases consistency. 

 

On that note, you said I make it seem like there is a tradeoff between power and consistency, which you don't think exists. Let's say I could play a 40 card Nekroz deck without Nekroz of Gungnir or a 41 card deck with Nekroz of Gungnir. You don't need to quantify how much to see that there is a definite tradeoff of power and consistency here. My power is increased, because I have more cards I can search. My overall number of options goes up (increase in power), at the tradeoff of a decrease in consistency from having one more card in my deck and seeing my best cards that much less. 

 

I am kind of under the impression you rejected my definitions, and then read the chapter using your own definitions expecting it to make sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»ACP    33417

Power is the more readily understood of the definitions. In the text, consistency seems to take on a new meanings as the sections progress whereas you could have given a much more straightforward definition initially.

 

When I build decks, I do think about similar concepts, both on the micro and macro level. I don't think you're an idiot, I just think you explained your ideas exceptionally poorly in certain parts of the book.

 

Like when I built Monarchs 6 months ago, I didn't play March of the Monarchs, which at the time was maybe played in about half of Monarch lists. Using your theory (as explained by your Nekroz of Gungnir example), playing March would make my deck more powerful and less consistent. But I don't view that as the best perspective here. I looked at it as, "Will this card help me win games against the decks that I expect to play against?" This was a clear no, so it was an easy cut.

 

Another way of looking at it, is that particularly with power, I think that the extent that a card increases a deck's power is determined almost entirely by metagame conditions. In a different universe where March of the Monarchs had a lot more application against strategies that I'm likely to play against, I would've played it in my deck. As you even said in the book, it's all relative. Relative specifically, to the other decks in the format. A deck that wins turn 3 would be very powerful if every other decks wins on turn 4 or not very powerful if every other deck wins on turn 2.

 

I think in this whole process you need to start by setting some sort of "metagame bar" so to speak, with strategy selection in particular.

 

The problem with "adding more options increases power decreases consistency" as a mentality whether it be with Nekroz of Gungnir or March of the Monarchs is that it has some very unintuitive consequences. By adding a card that favors power over consistency, we could decrease our average power per hand, which to some would seem very counter-intuitive (try test drawing hands with a March of the Monarchs in your deck and you'll see what I mean).

 

Like I think what you really want to talk about in this section here is concepts like average hand strength, average turn strength, relative strength, etc. and decompose those into the factors that you are currently calling "power" and "consistency", but in this chapter I don't think you've done the best job of doing so. Obviously here we can sit on duelistgroundz for days and keep clarifying and expanding upon what we mean, but most of your readers don't have that privilege. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»ACP    33417

Basically what I'm trying to say is that everyone who purchased Patrick Hoban's book needs to join duelistgroundz.com and start posting if they want maximum value out of their purchase.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»ACP    33417

 

While I did not give the book a rating, I would classify my overall thoughts on the book as "mostly positive", but at the same time encouraged Hoban to write a (more polished) 2nd Edition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+scuzzlebutt    23484

SO MANY SHOTS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+scuzzlebutt    23484

taking advance orders on the dvd release of the acp/slashtap honor duel

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Me.    58
18 hours ago, dennis frogman said:

taking advance orders on the dvd release of the acp/slashtap honor duel

 

What's the pre-release price?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SSJ Grumpig    5620

wheres my i watched the whole review back to back memorabilia

 

good points from both sides, just a disconnect in mental approaches. i did think the bit about arbitrarily setting ethics codes for the "spirit of competition" was pretty great

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Dragon    312
26 minutes ago, Abe Thalos said:

If you ever considered playing March in your deck you should just quit Yugioh.

 

If you mean in his deck specifically then you've completely missed the point.

If you mean in general then you both missed the point and failed to realize that March was a pretty good side deck card against Phantom Knight Burning Abyss last format.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»ACP    33417
46 minutes ago, Abe Thalos said:

If you ever considered playing March in your deck you should just quit Yugioh.

Hindsight vision is 20/20.

 

The 4 stages of the community's reaction to an ACP innovation:

1. Disbelief: "This ACP guy sucks, his ideas sucks, and they will never reach the mainstream."

2. Dissemination: "Ok, so maybe this idea is starting to catch on, but there's no way it's actually any good."

3. Disappointment: "What, ACP actually won something? He must have gotten lucky."

4. Disillusion: "No, ACP never even came up with that to begin with. We knew it all along."

 

See: Gadgets, Frogs, Six Samurai, and Gishki for further references

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+scuzzlebutt    23484

5. Porno fanfic

  • Upvote 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mark    3105
37 minutes ago, Abe Thalos said:

6. Read March when the cards were released in the OCG and decided to laugh at anyone who played it ever.

 

Probably the opposite of hindsight.

Good job recognizing this so early on! You must be really smart! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mark    3105
22 minutes ago, Abe Thalos said:

Lol read the card, it does nothing to give you card advantage or progress your gamestate, it doesn't even take away from your oponent or prevent them from playing the game. Its absurd to think you have to be smart to think its bad.

I was being sarcastic and you're obnoxious as fuck 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»ACP    33417
6 hours ago, Abe Thalos said:

6. Read March when the cards were released in the OCG and decided to laugh at anyone who played it ever.

 

Probably the opposite of hindsight.

Really? Where were you posting about it then? On week 1 of Monarch release, when it won a 240-person tournament with March maindecked, where were you telling everyone how awful it was? When you're telling someone that you already knew something only after it has already proven to be true, yes that's hindsight.

 

This is what's wrong with the Yugioh community. Everyone wants to save their "top secret knowledge" or whatever but still try to take credit for it after the fact. You can't have it both ways. Either you can share your genius knowledge with the community and get to take credit for it afterwards when it turns out you're right, or you can keep it to yourself and inevitably someone else will discover it themselves.

 

I mostly do the former. When I think the community is greatly misevaluating the card, I'll tell them why I think they have made a mistake rather than be a pussy and try to make fun of them 6 months after the fact. It creates more discussion, and you don't come off as a huge dick the way that you are now. For example, see: Jar of Avarice.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Gojira    1706

2nd mistake is that March isn't an inherently bad card, only bad in the format where consistency was paramount. While it's no longer viable after the banlist, March was very powerful in combination with The Despair Uranus.

 

If you don't understand that a card's power level varies wildly in context, there's no reason to believe your predictions. You make your minimal thought clear (assuming you're truthful), in that you made a static evaluation as soon as the card was released.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mark    3105
1 hour ago, Gojira said:

2nd mistake is that March isn't an inherently bad card, only bad in the format where consistency was paramount. While it's no longer viable after the banlist, March was very powerful in combination with The Despair Uranus.

 

If you don't understand that a card's power level varies wildly in context, there's no reason to believe your predictions. You make your minimal thought clear (assuming you're truthful), in that you made a static evaluation as soon as the card was released.

May I ask why you think March + Uranus is specifically powerful? Wouldn't something such as, say, Kristya+Scolding be more powerful? But then again, that also doesn't see any play. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Gojira    1706
31 minutes ago, mark said:

May I ask why you think March + Uranus is specifically powerful? Wouldn't something such as, say, Kristya+Scolding be more powerful? But then again, that also doesn't see any play. 

One fits in an already existing deck and allows a searchable lock? Either with vanity's, domain, or safe zone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×