Jump to content
Noelle

Cards in Deck Paradox

Recommended Posts

fractal    2488

I would look at consistency as the ability to perform to capacity. A Deck can be consistent and not powerful. A handful of years back, I made a little SalvoDAD Deck, toying around with it in Saber/Fernity/Frog era after reading about it, and it could draw a shitload of cards and just wipe boards, but couldn't do anything else, really. Every game I tested with my roommate, we came to the conclusion that it was very consistent, but very limited. Consistency doesn't have to run parallel to power.

 

In history, the best Decks, that gave us the best chance of winning games, were the ones with the most access to powerful cards. This is typically why tutors come to be so powerful in formats (Darksoul, Scarm, Sangan), as they give you great consistency, which allows you more frequent opportunity to perform at capacity.

 

Edit: ...and ninja'd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Me.    57

I would look at consistency as the ability to perform to capacity. A Deck can be consistent and not powerful. A handful of years back, I made a little SalvoDAD Deck, toying around with it in Saber/Fernity/Frog era after reading about it, and it could draw a shitload of cards and just wipe boards, but couldn't do anything else, really. Every game I tested with my roommate, we came to the conclusion that it was very consistent, but very limited. Consistency doesn't have to run parallel to power.

 

In history, the best Decks, that gave us the best chance of winning games, were the ones with the most access to powerful cards. This is typically why tutors come to be so powerful in formats (Darksoul, Scarm, Sangan), as they give you great consistency, which allows you more frequent opportunity to perform at capacity.

 

Edit: ...and ninja'd.

 

Except the consistency at which you can perform a capacity is completely irrelevant to any competitive discussion. As previously stated, the only thing that really matters is the consistency at which you win.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Me.    57

After talking it over with Allen privately I think I can even better describe what I'm referring to here:

 

Comparing Exodia to something with a lesser bearing on winning probably isn't that intellectually honest, because winning = winning. There is no intrinsic difference between attacking for game and assembling Exodia. The difference is the rate you can do either, the consistency. So consistency's definition is the same as I've noted, but hopefully this will help people understand what power is about a bit better if the 1/100 vs 0/100 scenario did not.

 

I'm fairy certain I got what you were trying to say in this post, correct?

 

 

 

 

@Me. Just because power is comparable to everything else, which it is, does not make it a quantitative measure and not a qualitative one. The reality is comparing something to everything else is the ONLY thing that determines quality here, so consistency is the quantity and power the quality, as I've defined.

 

How is quality not a type of quantity? It's clearly comparative, you can "say this deck has more power than this other deck" and the phrase has meaning under your "definitions", from which it's obvious that the two decks have different levels of power and it doesn't matter if you call these levels "quality" or "quantity".

 

I can ease up on the condition of telling me how to quantify power, but at least have your definition include how to compare it.

 

 

We compare power in the same way we just exemplified. Assembling Exodia has a higher bearing on winning than drawing a hand full of vanillas. But to just look at this axis is wrong so you have to also look at the axis of consistency here, and both of those things are what, combined, constitute your overall chances of winning.

 

 

So, your definition of power is to look at how likely one specific hand is to win and your definition of consistency is how likely that hand is to occur. This doesn't actually include any more relevant information than the win-rate of the deck and is just a more confusing and round-about way of saying the same thing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ACP    33423

Enjoy, duelists:

 

A.C. Pennington
hey, if you're available, I think it would be easier to just discuss this power/consistency thing here
rather than going back and forth posting walls
I think we need to break it down piece by piece
Matthew Monahan
4:19pm
Matthew Monahan
sure im around
A.C. Pennington
4:19pm
A.C. Pennington
ok
so let's start with a discussion on the term "power"
we're using it as a descriptive term rather than an abstract concept, right?
in other words, we describe things as powerful or not powerful
yes?
Matthew Monahan
4:21pm
Matthew Monahan
we describe them as more powerful or less powerful, instead of "not" and is" because x can be more powerful than y can be more powerful than z
A.C. Pennington
4:21pm
A.C. Pennington
right right
but the whole point is introducing this word
is to describe something, right?
Matthew Monahan
4:21pm
Matthew Monahan
of course
A.C. Pennington
4:21pm
A.C. Pennington
*of introducing this word
ok
so then
let me copy/paste your definition
Power is just as I've defined it, the comparative impact on winning in accordance to everything else.
already, we have ran into an issue
because we have not stated what we intend to describe with this new term
in other words, what is it that has this impact of winning?
are we talking about individual cards, or decks as a whole, both?
Matthew Monahan
4:23pm
Matthew Monahan
individual cards are what creates your decks function as a whole. on the micro scale you can look at power of individual cards and on a macro scale you can look at power of whole decks, which is why i also argue macro and micro as not useless buzzwords either
A.C. Pennington
4:23pm
A.C. Pennington
ok, I basically agree
thus I think it's probably better to have two definitions then
these definitions will probably look similar
but it's best to be explicit about things to avoid confusing people
so let's start with decks
because I think that one's easier
Do you agree that the more powerful a deck is, the more it wins, and vice-versa?
Matthew Monahan
4:27pm
Matthew Monahan
no, and this is where the discrepancy comes from. assembling exodia has the most bearing on winning, correct? so by our definition here it would be 100% power, to assign a value to it. but if the consistency determines you can only apply that power 1/100 games then you're only winning 1/100 games, and therefore the more powerful a deck is does not necessarily mean the more it wins
A.C. Pennington
4:27pm
A.C. Pennington
we're talking about decks remember
if you have an exodia deck that wins more than any other deck, it's the most powerful deck
if it doesn't, then it isn't
so again
how are you defining the most powerful deck
if you point to a deck and say "this is the most powerful" you have to be able to explain to me why it is
it seems like what you really mean to say by "power" is best case scenario
like, the best case scenario when we run an exodia deck, is that we open exodia
Matthew Monahan
4:30pm
Matthew Monahan
But the thing I don't think you're considering here is that what determines that exodia deck is winning more than any other deck is also the consistency; how much that deck can apply that 100% power. I would probably always be right, therefore, in saying Exodia or some instant win deck is the most powerful, but it doesn't mean anything if you're not also including the measure of consistency here. I think in your head you're combining power and consistency to form one thing.
A.C. Pennington
4:31pm
A.C. Pennington
you're sidetracking
we haven't starting talking about consistency yet
we're talking about power
if someone asks you "matt, what is the most powerful yugioh deck right now?" what criteria do you use to answer that question
Matthew Monahan
4:33pm
Matthew Monahan
I use the criteria we just laid out, the one with the comparatively highest impact. But I'd also reiterate to them how useless of a measure it is without also talking about consistency which is why I don't think isolating them is that productive
impact on winning*
A.C. Pennington
4:33pm
A.C. Pennington
how is a deck that has "comparatively the highest impact on winning" different from "the deck that wins the most"?
and real quick
before you answer
just a quick side-thought
I'm jumping ahead a little
because I noticed that you defined consistent in terms of power "the rate of power"
thus if your definition of "power" relies on the definition of "consistency" both definitions rely upon each other which is a logical fallacy
so I assumed that we could talk about power without talking about consistency
in the abstract, at least
so back to the original question, how is a deck that has "comparatively the highest impact on winning" different from "the deck that wins the most"?
Matthew Monahan
4:36pm
Matthew Monahan
okay then im fine with talking about just power. the reason they're different, is the same reason that exodia has more of a bearing on winning but does not win as much as whatever other deck
so there is not a definite correlation there
A.C. Pennington
4:36pm
A.C. Pennington
ok but you realize that your definition has failed to explain the distinction
in actual english language, the two phrases would mean virtually the same thing
so if your explains don't reflect the definition, then you need to come up with a better definition
*examples
Matthew Monahan
4:37pm
Matthew Monahan
impact towards winning isnt the same as how much you win though
even in the english language
A.C. Pennington
4:38pm
A.C. Pennington
so it's like the distinction between
someone who finishes 99% of a race and someone who finishes 10% of a race?
neither one completed the race, but one of them made a big impact towards their goal?
or is it something else?
Matthew Monahan
4:41pm
Matthew Monahan
i think its something else, im not sure that analogy does it justice. I'm having a bit of trouble figuring out a better analogy in my head but I know it's there
A.C. Pennington
4:41pm
A.C. Pennington
ok
so you say this exodia deck is powerful
it's got standard exodia cards
emissary of the afterlife, dark factory of mass production, upstart goblins, the works
why is it that you are saying this deck is powerful?
again, it seems more like a best case scenario thing
"well I can draw exodia really fast and win"
Matthew Monahan
4:44pm
Matthew Monahan
I guess this is really just the issue with isolating power and consistency, because either again, just becomes a completely useless concept without the other. since winning the game = winning the game I can see where you're going with this, that another deck that attacks for game doesn't intrinsically have less bearing towards winning than exodia
A.C. Pennington
4:44pm
A.C. Pennington
I'm just trying to figure out why you've isolated exodia specifically
it almost requires me of the little kid mentality
I play obelisk because if I summon it I can't lose!
(spoiler: when I was 12, I played nothing but exodia and loved it)
Matthew Monahan
4:46pm
Matthew Monahan
hm. well all comparativity forms a list in order of what best meets an objective, so it's a question of what you want to do before something else. You would want to assemble exodia before you would want to summon megalo set a sphere and pass, right?
but since winning=winning theres a problem here
Would i want to attack for game before assembling exodia? who knows
A.C. Pennington
4:47pm
A.C. Pennington
well I mean
Matthew Monahan
4:47pm
Matthew Monahan
thats why id argue you have to look at the rate you can do either
A.C. Pennington
4:47pm
A.C. Pennington
I would love to open exodia every single game
so would we all
because it's literally impossible to lose
of course you would never win a tournament that way
because after opening exodia 5 times in a row you'd get DQed
even if you weren't cheating
but that's beside the point
like I kinda know what you're getting at, but I just think you've failed to define it well
Matthew Monahan
4:48pm
Matthew Monahan
maybe I have, perhaps the winning = winning to define power, but that consistency compares how often you do them, is the best way to explain to people
its just another way of describing something that has always been in my head
A.C. Pennington
4:48pm
A.C. Pennington
let me use a better example that I think demonstrates what phenomenon you're referring to
I've been playing yugioh for a long time
and have mostly been pretty bad at it
and while I was bad, I associated with a lot of bad players, no surprises there
and I remember when sky scourge norleras came out
and even single baddie trying to build a sky scourge norleras deck
mostly because chaos emperor was banned, and we figured this card had to be just as good
so what I think you have by power is more so "potential"
Matthew Monahan
4:51pm
Matthew Monahan
funny story about that card theres a new deck with it thats been gaining popularity but continue
A.C. Pennington
4:51pm
A.C. Pennington
like if there was a way to open exodia every game, it would be amazing
just like if there was a way to summon norleras t1 every game, that would be pretty amazing too
so it is kinda like the best case thing that I was talking about but slightly more nuanced
Matthew Monahan
4:52pm
Matthew Monahan
there basically is now, which would demonstrate a rise in consistency from then to now
A.C. Pennington
4:53pm
A.C. Pennington
so is that what you mean, potential?
or like top end? or something like that?
Matthew Monahan
4:54pm
Matthew Monahan
I don't know what other words I'd use to describe it but as you've laid out, the power was always there, but the rate you can apply that power has changed
A.C. Pennington
4:54pm
A.C. Pennington
but I'm still not sure what it is you mean by power
because I would be hard-pressed to call a deck powerful because it can open the 5 pieces of exodia
if someone asked me, "hey allen, what's the most powerful ygo deck and why?" I don't think the answer they are looking for is, "exodia, because it can open exodia"
Matthew Monahan
4:56pm
Matthew Monahan
well I mean if you want, you can call a deck powerful because the rate of that power applied is high along with it having a comparatively higher impact towards winning vs other decks. that sounds like more of a semantics issue than anything
A.C. Pennington
4:56pm
A.C. Pennington
maybe we should back-track a little
since it is likely that your definition of power will depend upon some other definition
we know what a win is
and we know what win rate is
is there any way to define power in terms of win rate?
or are they just completely seperate?
could you ever say that a deck which virtually never wins is powerful and a deck that wins 90% of the time is not powerful?
if you could, I think your definition of power is going to confuse a lot of people
and at a minimum, you should consider re-naming the term
Matthew Monahan
4:58pm
Matthew Monahan
perhaps calling decks powerful altogether is useless
A.C. Pennington
4:58pm
A.C. Pennington
ok
Matthew Monahan
4:58pm
Matthew Monahan
all power and consistency should be understood as, are what constitutes your winrate
not something to blanket call decks
A.C. Pennington
4:58pm
A.C. Pennington
the way I understood it, in my own head
Matthew Monahan
4:58pm
Matthew Monahan
again, sounds like a semantics issue
A.C. Pennington
4:58pm
A.C. Pennington
is top down
you start with a powerful deck
and powerful decks consist of powerful interactions or powerful cards
but we can try bottom up instead
there's about 8000 yugioh cards currently
and many of them combine together, which is what we'd call an interaction, a combo, or synergy
how might we compare the power of there cards and interactions?
*these
Matthew Monahan
5:01pm
Matthew Monahan
creating an objective measure of power is something that has alluded me in the past and I haven't quite figured out yet. We can sure as hell point to other measures of about the same thing and dismiss them as arbitrary though, which is why I don't like Patrick's work on "ceilings," because it's exactly that: an arbitrary measure of power.
A.C. Pennington
5:02pm
A.C. Pennington
well it's pretty hard to talk about things that you can't measure, as I'm sure you know
and things get even worse when you talk about taking the "rate" of something that you can't measure
Matthew Monahan
5:03pm
Matthew Monahan
well its something I've been working on. I actually have also been thinking about the legitimacy of arbitrary measures, and I was going to write a piece about it explaining my frustrations but I'm p sure it would just be way too out there for a lot of dgz folk which is why the person I argue with the most about ygo is myself
Matthew Monahan
5:04pm
Matthew Monahan
well we can know that the rate exists without being able to measure it
A.C. Pennington
5:04pm
A.C. Pennington
sure, but then that just means that you have two unmeasurable variables now
which basically doesn't accomplish anything
Matthew Monahan
5:06pm
Matthew Monahan
well, we have vaguely measureable variables at least. we can know one thing has more impact towards winning than another thing, and we can vaguely figure out the rate you can do either
A.C. Pennington
5:06pm
A.C. Pennington
well I half-agree with you
yes, we know that some things win more than other things
by a "rate" generally refers to something which is variable
the rate of a constant is just 0
if come up with some measure of how powerful a card is
this is all theoretical
say we come up with some scale from 0 to 10
10 is the most powerful, 0 is the least powerful
and we can somehow definitively say
this object is a 7 on our scale
taking the rate of it doesn't make any sense
now if you were to say
the power of this card is variable
p(x) = x^2-x
where x is some other thing that we've defined
then we can talk about rate of power
but that requires us to define at least one other variable
or else the motive for taking the rate of power is lost
it's why for example, when someone asks you how fast you're going, that's a rate, such as miles per hour
you need to have an understanding of both what miles and hours are for the rate to make sense
if someone asked you how fast you're going you'd never respond with "5 feet" because it doesnt make sense
Matthew Monahan
5:12pm
Matthew Monahan
so the issue is with me using the word rate in the definition of consistency because "the chances x happens" does not constitute a "rate" in mathematic terms, correct?
even though its semantical instead of conceptual I suppose it ought to still be amended to make it less confusing
A.C. Pennington
5:13pm
A.C. Pennington
well I'm trying to understand what you mean
like I understand what you're saying about exodia
so does everyone
any yugioh player knows that if you draw exodia you win
Matthew Monahan
5:14pm
Matthew Monahan
I still think the best example is the 1/100 vs 0/100 scenario, did you pick up on that one?
A.C. Pennington
5:14pm
A.C. Pennington
but we all also know that we are not particularly likely to do so
I think what you eventually wish to define here is expected value vs variance perhaps
such as the difference between
I offer to roll a 6-sided dice
if it comes up a 6, I'll pay $100
any other result, and I pay you nothing
the expected value is $16.67
and the variance you'll have to give me a sec to calculate
yeah I guess the variance is 1388 or so
as opposed to this scenario
I roll a 6-sided dice
and I'll pay you $10 regardless of the result
the EV is $10
and the variance is 0
one has higher average payout, but it's also higher risk
so it depends on which you value more
as an individual
(which is econ is what we call risk aversion)
Matthew Monahan
5:18pm
Matthew Monahan
exactly, and the 1/100 vs 0/100 scenario is something that pragmatically argues to value power a little bit more
A.C. Pennington
5:19pm
A.C. Pennington
so I was correct originally that when you talk about consistency, what you really mean is variance?
high consistency = low variance and vice versa?
Matthew Monahan
5:20pm
Matthew Monahan
well consistency is all-inclusive, so it would include that, yes. it also includes technical play, the odds you draw x, the odds your opp draws x, your opps expected technical play, everything. this things may all be categorized into variance for you, but just in other terms, its why I think all concepts boil down to power and consistency
Matthew Monahan
5:20pm
Matthew Monahan
in this game
A.C. Pennington
5:21pm
A.C. Pennington
so what is consistency intending to measure then?
it's the composition of a bunch of other variables?
maybe I should rephrase
in standard english
the word consistent is this
constantly adhering to the same principles, course, form, etc.:
a consistent opponent.
so for example
I could construct a deck consistently of 40 normal monsters
and say that this deck is consistent... consistent at drawing normal monsters
but that's obviously not what you're talking about
Matthew Monahan
5:24pm
Matthew Monahan
yes, so its consistent at doing something not very comparatively powerful, right?
A.C. Pennington
5:24pm
A.C. Pennington
so when you call a deck consist you have to say what property is consistent
I actually hate the term consistent in the context that yugioh players typically use it in
Matthew Monahan
5:25pm
Matthew Monahan
well yeah me too
A.C. Pennington
5:25pm
A.C. Pennington
because it basically doesn't mean anything
Matthew Monahan
5:25pm
Matthew Monahan
but i use it in a more all-inclusive term
i hate the way they define power too
what i try to reach is the best understanding, and i think all useful concepts are just somehow minimized into either power or consistency
A.C. Pennington
5:26pm
A.C. Pennington
in general, and we're getting a little sidetracked now, but fuck it
like I work in math obviously, which is the most "theoretical" scientific field there is
but what a lot of people don't realize
is that historically, math people didn't come up with theory just because they wanted to come up with theory
it's very objective based
so in the context of yugioh, I think you need to first start off with what you're trying to accomplish
and then develop the theory to accomplish that goal
that's why all of the "theory" that I put forth starts by mentioning how this ties into winning games first and foremost
Matthew Monahan
5:28pm
Matthew Monahan
yeah. the reason I seek to deal more with logic and conceptuality rather than just math, but instead understand math for its actual importance, is that I think almost anyone can write numbers around false logic and have it be "mathematically true" but that it just doesn't mean anything if it doesn't coincide with being logically true. its the same thing you see ppl like dont forget try to do
A.C. Pennington
5:29pm
A.C. Pennington
well I wasn't actually trying to make a point about math
Matthew Monahan
5:29pm
Matthew Monahan
yeah ik
A.C. Pennington
5:29pm
A.C. Pennington
I'm just pointing out that I think you're approaching yugioh theory wrong
the goal is really to try to explain why things win
why is hoban winning, why is pepe winning, why is pot of greed a staple in everything
and I think the top down approach works best here
we can say that when you enter a tournament you're just a player plus a deck
so those are distinct things that we can talk about individually
and then you can break each of those down further
and so on and so forth
rather than starting from the bottom down and realize at the end that all of your variables and theory doesn't actually have anything to do with winning
*bottom up
Matthew Monahan
5:34pm
Matthew Monahan
but I still believe power and consistency to be what constitutes win-rate, so of course it has to do with winning. as far as bottom-up goes, I think it's my dialectical inclination that dictates it, and that generally I believe little truths create bigger truths. 
For example, Marx's investigation of capitalism didn't start as the result of it, but rather began with the base of it, commodities. Maybe it differs by person but as far as trying to understand stuff goes I've always prefered working up the latter
Matthew Monahan
5:34pm
Matthew Monahan
ladder*
A.C. Pennington
5:35pm
A.C. Pennington
well so far power and consistency are just words
like I said, I think we can agree that the two sectors of win rate are the player and the deck
I believe that you wish to discuss the deck, rather than the player
and obviously discussing what makes good decks good is incredibly complicated
Matthew Monahan
5:37pm
Matthew Monahan
but the player is part of the all-inclusivity of consistency
does the player have a bearing on the rate that you're able to do stuff?
A.C. Pennington
5:37pm
A.C. Pennington
well people typically talk about them seperately
Matthew Monahan
5:37pm
Matthew Monahan
sure, if you mess up that affects it
i disagree with talking about it seperately, and thats why
A.C. Pennington
5:37pm
A.C. Pennington
there are consistent players and consistent decks
but then what is it?
like we said, our goal is to win, right>
Matthew Monahan
5:38pm
Matthew Monahan
yes
A.C. Pennington
5:38pm
A.C. Pennington
that's the top of our tree
I think it's obvious that a player and a deck are too distinct things
obviously different players are better with different decks
but the idea would be that there are a finite number of decks, a finite number of players, and therefore a finite number of combinations of decks and players
and some of those deck/player combinations will be more successful in tournament than others
and the most direct way to look at what makes those combinations successful is to break apart the deck and player components
sure, we could have a discussion of why I was able to do well with gadgets from 2007-2009 despite the fact that I'm a shitty player and gadgets are a shitty deck
but that's a lot more complicated and a lot more immeasurable
Matthew Monahan
5:41pm
Matthew Monahan
but then couldnt you also look at the player from our power and consistency terms? to do some jedi mind trick would be really powerful and have a high bearing on winning, as would playing right in general, these can also be quantified as consistency
A.C. Pennington
5:41pm
A.C. Pennington
well yes of course you could
like I said, we can break those down further
now, I'm not sure if those would be the names that I would choose
it would be weird to describe player as "powerful"
Matthew Monahan
5:43pm
Matthew Monahan
again though, that gets into the semantical thing about it. we're not trying to define things as powerful or not powerful, only as more powerful or less powerful
A.C. Pennington
5:43pm
A.C. Pennington
and I doubt that when we break down the elements of a successful player vs the element of a successful deck we will want to use the same terms to describe them
Matthew Monahan
5:43pm
Matthew Monahan
things, or players in this case
A.C. Pennington
5:43pm
A.C. Pennington
like philosophically, a deck is an object, a player is... well a player
a deck is really just a tool that a player uses
it would be taking some some a blue-collar job
say a construction worker
we can talk about
what makes good construction
say we're donald trump
and we need to construct a wall
and we want to do it as well as possible
well there are really too main elements of that
the workers themselves
some workers are better than others
and the building materials and tools
so now we say
ok, we've found some good workers
and some good building materials/tools
and now we want to see why these construction workers are good
so we look at all of the different elements of that
their experience, their intelligence, their clumsiness, how well they work with others, etc
and then we look at our hammers, our steel beams, etc and break those down
why is this hammer between than all of the other hammers
and fuck it I'm not in construction so hell if I know why some hammers are better than others
but you get the point
what makes a good hammer is completely different from what makes a good worker
Matthew Monahan
5:47pm
Matthew Monahan
I suppose you could call the hammers and shit here the power and the workers here the consistency as they're determining how much that power is used, if you want to get epistemological
A.C. Pennington
5:47pm
A.C. Pennington
well I'm just pointing out
that breaking down the components of a good worker
and breaking down the component of a good hammer
and expecting to find the same components
would be pretty silly
Matthew Monahan
5:48pm
Matthew Monahan
well yes, but thats also why I start at the bottom during investigation: because starting from the top is only creating by assuming everything beneath it
but if you're illustrating the problem with my definition of consistency because of it its all-inclusivity, i see what you're saying here
A.C. Pennington
5:49pm
A.C. Pennington
yeah that was my intention there
but in regards to top down vs bottom up
really what it is
and starting from what we know and what we want to know
a bottom up approach to problem-solving is not necessarily bad in general obviously
there are plenty of situations where it works fine
but the issue is what we know in yugioh is so limited
we basically just know
the rules of the game
and that our objective is to win
so I kinda think that's where we're forced to start from
(which ends up being a top down approach)
Matthew Monahan
5:53pm
Matthew Monahan
yeah, the contradiction of empiricism dialectically speaking is that it starts at the effect rather than the cause, and in the case of ygo the effect is just "winning" so we have to work our way down from there
which makes investigation harder obviously
A.C. Pennington
5:54pm
A.C. Pennington
well it's that we're seeking out some desired effect
and working out way backward
now there are a lot of other contexts where the exact opposite approach is better
Matthew Monahan
5:54pm
Matthew Monahan
because its no longer "this logically creates this," it's "this is probably a result of these things"
A.C. Pennington
5:54pm
A.C. Pennington
well I mean
you can't logically prove any of this
like when I say
the two components of success are the player and the deck
I think it's immediately obvious to most peple
but I can't prove that there isn't some other component
that I'm missing
Matthew Monahan
5:56pm
Matthew Monahan
yes and that is the issue that stems from "this is probably a result of these things," because if you're missing one of those things you dont have the full story. of course you can just as easily miss something from bottom-up, but that's usually represented in a contradiction of the effect of the cause
A.C. Pennington
5:57pm
A.C. Pennington
like I kinda see what you're saying
Matthew Monahan
5:57pm
Matthew Monahan
anyway my shows coming on in a few minutes do you wanna pick up on this some other time? ygo epistemology is something ive been trying to work on lately
A.C. Pennington
5:57pm
A.C. Pennington
sure I gotta go to class in 10 minutes anyways
but do you mind if I post the convo on DGZ?
Matthew Monahan
5:57pm
Matthew Monahan
yeah sure
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The_Be(a)sT    968

 

 

This doesn't actually include any more relevant information than the win-rate of the deck and is just a more confusing and round-about way of saying the same thing.

 

This is true. And ti seems to be the main point of the argument. 
What Allen says is 100% correct. Your win-rate is all that matters. Call it a power of a deck, or deck that can most consistently win, it's still the same thing. 
However, we are getting to the problem of determinig what is "the most powerful" deck.
To take the deck, play X number of games and find its win-rate against all other decks, thus finding it's "power", is one solution. The larger the X value is, the more correct it will be. And that's approach that Allen always talks about. Let's call it statistical solution.
The problem with this is, that to play X number of games, where X is large enough for us to take the result seriously, and to do the same against all decks in current meta game, with all variants of decks, is impossible. 

That's why we are looking for another solution how to find the "most powerful deck". That's where we start talking about theory. 
We are looking for ways that can compare decks and can predict the outcome of a duel (our win-rate). The better theory is, the closer you will get to the values found by "statistical solution", had you actually taken the deck and played all the games. In other words, you are trying to predict your win-rate in specific match-up, without the need to play all the games. 

To do that, we can say that our total win-rate (which we are looking for) will be equal to the sum of all possible impacts of individual cards (combination of cards) on our chances to win multiplied by our chances to see them in a duel

Wtotal = ∑(Pi * Ci)  

where:
Wtotal is expected win-rate
Pi is the impact of individual card (or combination of cards) on our chances to win a duel
Ci is the individual probability to see that card (combination of cards) 

Another problem arises. Define these terms.

 Ci should be self-explanatory. Only thing we need to realize is that it will always be a value that can be (easily) calculated and depends only on our deck. 
Pi , however, is a real bitch. In no way had we considered our opponent yet. That means the value must also depend on our opponetn's deck. It obviously depends on the card (combination of cards) itself. We could also say that it depends on "how well we use the card" (where with perfect technical play, you will always use your card with the full value). 
So let's say that 

Pi = ∑(Vis * Cis) (for perfect technical play)
where:
Vis is value of certain card (combination ofcards) in certain situation
Cis is probability of that situation to occur

Again, Vis is an arbitrary number that represents how large impact will a certain card (combination of cards) have in certain situation, but now doesn't depend on your opponent's deck, but rather on certain situations, that can be discribed.
While Cis is probability of that situation to occur, and thus depends only on your opponents deck and can be again calculated (easily) by looking at your opponent's list. 

That's how you can create your theory. (or how I have). You are left with only assigning values that represent impact on your win-rate for certain cards in certain situations (that's what I would call a power of a card in a certain situation), while the rest is non-arbitrary and can be calculated.

While all of this didn't get us any nearer to finding the best deck, as doing this for all combination of cards and all match-ups is, again, impossible; we now have a nice tool, unlike going the "statistical way" (where we are left with blind guessing or experience), that can solve some problems of deckbuilding and can provide answers to certain questions. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ACP    33423
I think part of the problem for a lot of players is that they're trying to combine 2006 theory and 2016 theory. Individual cards aren't good or bad anymore. Various strategies are good, and cards either contribute or don't contribute to particular strategies. Long gone are the days when Dark Hole would've been a staple in every deck because "it's good in a vacuum and an easy +1."
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The_Be(a)sT    968

But that's what I'm saying. You are not comparing cards in vacuum. You are comparing them in regard to specific situations while also taking into account how likely are those situations to happen.  Those odds are dependant on yours and your opponent's decks.

 

Now, if you say strategy, that means you want to maximize the chances of that situation happening, and thus, it has a large impact on the comparison of 2 cards - which can lead into what seemed a worse card in a vacuum, being in fact, better choice for your deck. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fullerene60    382

for thought~
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(physics)

power is just work done per second, Kg*m^2/s^2... its already a rate
So "The rate of power" is the rate in which the rate of energy is changing.

ygo community uses weird words to define deck building topics.

If you look at what power actually means in the real world, its just the rate in which "stuff happens" or entropy in your system.
And consistency can also be seen as the rate in which "stuff happens" in your system.
If you draw a brick hand, "stuff isnt happening". No consistency and no power.

I donno, the link between the definition of the two words makes sense in my head... but rate of power! not so much.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blacklisted    1330

Id just like to think power is what something does and consistency is how often it can do what its supposed to do.

 

Not very powerful and very powerful would just mean the deck either does a lot or doesn't do much

Very consistent and not very consistent would just be either always getting from a to b or not very often.

 

You can be consistent and not powerful like a Frog deck thats always able to churn out rank 2's but that doesn't really do much and you can also be powerful and not consistent like some stick chair bullshit deck that if it gets going can kill you, control the board or whatever but isn't able to do it often.

 

However in ygo, power refers to able to win the game and consistency is how often it can win do that which is win the game and thus they're practically interchangeable because a deck that wins the game a lot is powerful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mark    3105

honestly it seems like matthew defines 'plays' as powerful, where powerful is: the more powerful, the more times you will win when you perform this play. And then, he defines 'decks' as consistent, being how often you're able to resolve those plays. But the problem with this is that what you call consistency is basically the power of your deck, and what you call the power of your deck is basically the power of your plays, and by my definitions, an exodia deck is not powerful but drawing exodia can be called a 'play', and the play itself is powerful but the rate of it is too low for the deck to be powerful. you then say this is a semantics issue but that's basically always the case, but I think understanding that power and consistency as you define it are literally the same thing, and I'm not saying this because I don't understand what you mean by it, I've fully read and understand your 1/100 0/100 examples, solves this entire argument. Basically I've got to say Allen is right in this 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+scuzzlebutt    23565
i warned you all that this would happen if we didn't stop with the fucking buzzwords... an entire generation of theorists now use these big cool sounding words without ever learning how to use them

just pick an all inclusive term for skill and use it. or do what i do, and dont. people spend far too much time nowadays trying to logic chop their way to a totalizing theoretical structure that's supposed to solve all their problems and deck building questions. youre never going to be able to end the conversation on what a given game "really is," point blank period. stop trying, people. allen's right and i was wrong, there's no meaningful distinction between consistency and power outside of their historical use
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Noelle    5850

Frogman, is why you view theoretical structures of the game here as useless a result of the following line:

 

"We should only look at the game in terms of things that we can say will contribute to our chances of winning both individually and as contingencies of one another, and should not be grouping them together to form some categorical model because that is the root of unproductive and pragmatically useless discussion."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
captainameowica    3770

fucking shit man why does everything matthew has to post gotta be so convoluted to the point that even he doesn't understand what the fuck he's saying? like i'm sure we all get it, he's pretty good at yugioh but trying to take even the simplest of concepts in the game and fill it with asinine philosophical bullshit makes you look like such a tryhard. fuck.

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Noelle    5850

But I am only as good as my thoughts make me, which right now, is here. Speaking of which, does anyone have an answer to the OP question if mine isn't right? Me. sort of gave one in saying that "ideal deck count" is just a tool in deck building to make your deck better, and insofar as getting rid of the notion of some amorphous deck count being useful I'd agree, but I'm not sure that what he said completely satisfies the question. I think that the number of cards you end with in deck is an effect and not a cause, so again, even if you want to use different terminology than I've used, it's still represented by and dictated by the relationships of all the cards you're playing within the deck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Souji Seta    673

Can we just play YGO without over-complicating the shit out of it? Yeah yeah, there's a right and a wrong way to build a deck. But it doesn't take rocket science to get there. All it takes is a little bit of logic. And of course there's a way to play optimally, but again, it's just about using your head a little. At the end of the day, winning comes down to how you play, how you draw, how they draw, and whether you get cheated or not. It's that simple. I know this is the "Theory and Philosophy" section, but holy shit. Healthy discussion is fine, but not like this. There is such a thing as taking philosophy too far, especially when it's a sacky game like YGO. 

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Noelle    5850

Can we just play YGO without over-complicating the shit out of it? Yeah yeah, there's a right and a wrong way to build a deck. But it doesn't take rocket science to get there. All it takes is a little bit of logic. And of course there's a way to play optimally, but again, it's just about using your head a little. At the end of the day, winning comes down to how you play, how you draw, how they draw, and whether you get cheated or not. It's that simple. I know this is the "Theory and Philosophy" section, but holy shit. Healthy discussion is fine, but not like this. There is such a thing as taking philosophy too far, especially when it's a sacky game like YGO. 

 

No that's garbage. Just because some folks here are less theoretically inclined and actively do not seek a proper understanding of the game that they spend time on, doesn't mean others are not. I may not always agree with mark, Me., The Beast (with some parenthesis and an underscore somewhere,) Allen, Frogman, Fullerene, Urthor, Patrick, Steinman etc all the time, but there's a pretty good reason that instead of trying to shut down discussion like the people that inevitably post shit like this, they actually are actively trying to argue themselves correct in them. 

 

For all you know, that "little bit of logic" could be completely laced in arbitrariness and fallacy. Wanna post a deck? Wanna defend it? Do you play 2 of something because it's bad to draw multiples of? Do you play a card because it's "so clutch" against whatever? It's pretty easy to sit there never having to defend shit, then turn around and shut down discussions working on explaining shit, in this case the number of cards in deck. There's a good reason why a lot of the people that wanna shut down these kinds of discussions tend not to be actual competitive players that care about doing well. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Souji Seta    673

I don't think theoretical discussions are bad, but taking it too far is something else for me. Like, it's YGO. This game is sacky. Even the best players aren't consistent. 

I think discussion is a lot more simple than what you take it for. If you wanna talk about how many cards you should play, play 40. If you have all the engine cards and you're short a few, play Upstart Goblin. 

I do care about being competitive, but making a rocket science out of YGO is the wrong approach in my eyes. It's fucking YGO, a game heavily decided on luck. It's not Chess. Ok, the goal is to make it so that luck isn't that big of a factor by making your deck consistent. So don't play shitty cards. At the end of the day, it's all going to come down to whether you do what your deck is supposed to do, whether your opponent draws God, or if you get cheated.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Noelle    5850

I think discussion is a lot more simple than what you take it for. If you wanna talk about how many cards you should play, play 40. If you have all the engine cards and you're short a few, play Upstart Goblin. 

 

Why 40? What if "all the engine cards" is more than 40? What if "all the engine cards" is off a few from 40, but you can't play Upstart for separate reasons? What should the measure be? As few as possible? That is negated by the extreme of playing a 0 or 6 card deck or whatever ignoring Exodia. As close to a number per deck as possible? We can't measure by archetype because you can switch out cards to falsify, and I'm sure I don't have to reiterate what we reach now as it was literally the OP of this discussion. 

 

What if you have a deck like the new Igknight FTK deck? In that deck, you have some bricks that you wanna stay in deck and you basically only wanna draw Igknights (although I would have to get a little more technical about 5s and 3s but just follow my words here.) Surely, if you have 40 cards in this deck and you can play another Igknight you would want to play 41, like Painful Decision. Also clearly, you'd want to play another Igknight before* Upstart Goblin, as an Igknight is always an Igknight but Upstart is some chance of not being an Igknight. 

 

Another example, a Mermail deck I had worked on before. Now I ended up just being wrong on something which falsified the idea, but the concept still could come up. I had went over 40 with more Mermail cards under the idea that "all mermail cards are roughly the same so my *insert buzzword whatever here, in my case power* won't change much at all with the more I add, but I'm greatly benefiting because I'm increasing my *buzzword etc* while decreasing the chances I see my bricks with every extra card." Now, I ended up being wrong of course but only pragmatically as there is a great deal of difference between Pike and Teus etc, but the concept can still be true for some decks.

 

That's also why I'm arguing that these types of relationships within the cards themselves determines the deck number in the last instant, and not some arbitrary measure you try to build to before-hand because it's falsifiable with just these types of things.

 

I'm not talking myself in circles here just because I'm getting deeper into it and surely what I just said isn't rocket science to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Souji Seta    673

Then play 41 or whatever number you want. Billy Brake won a YCS with 60 cards. Long Dao got 1st at Lille with a 53 card Mermail deck. 

If it's your day, it's your day. If you feel you need to fit more cards, be my guest. If extensive testing works for you, then it might as well be the right number for you. Like I said, it all comes down to how you draw. Even if your deck is a consistent 40 cards, you can still brick, and you can still lose to your opponent drawing better than you. 

That's how I view it. I don't think YGO needs to be picked apart to the bone to understand how it works. It's just YGO, build the deck to the best of your ability, play your best, and hope you don't brick. 

I dunno, man.

Erik went undefeated at a YCS with Infernoid. Just wanted to point that out there.

[spoiler]You're pro, Erik.[/spoiler] 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Noelle    5850

To make sure I have your dismissal right, is it something like "okay you have your way of deciding how many to play and I have mine, it doesn't really matter much anyway cus this game is so sacky." 

 

Do I have this correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Souji Seta    673

YES, that's perfect! Like you can play to the best of your ability and it won't matter because the game is sacky. Hoban lost on the bubble like 2-3 times to Yang Zing. How many events have you entered and done your best, but lost because you bricked/your opponent drew better? 

Building the deck to its greater potential and playing optimally clearly helps, but it's not going to prevent you from drawing a bad hand or your opponent from drawing a better hand. And yes, like I've said before, you can make it so that your deck is more consistent, but you can still brick. You can still come across hand traps to ruin your turn 1 plays. This game isn't down to a perfect science because there are so many variables. 

Like you can disagree with what I say, and that's fine. 

But ultimately, this game has a lot of luck involved that you can't alter no matter how hard you try. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+scuzzlebutt    23565

Frogman, is why you view theoretical structures of the game here as useless a result of the following line:
 
"We should only look at the game in terms of things that we can say will contribute to our chances of winning both individually and as contingencies of one another, and should not be grouping them together to form some categorical model because that is the root of unproductive and pragmatically useless discussion."

...no...?
that's a question right?

my view is mostly a result of what ive gathered from other, better disciplines

and the insane whispers of the sphinx

he comes to me in my dreams
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ibGehring+    1409

YES, that's perfect! Like you can play to the best of your ability and it won't matter because the game is sacky. Hoban lost on the bubble like 2-3 times to Yang Zing. How many events have you entered and done your best, but lost because you bricked/your opponent drew better? 

Building the deck to its greater potential and playing optimally clearly helps, but it's not going to prevent you from drawing a bad hand or your opponent from drawing a better hand. And yes, like I've said before, you can make it so that your deck is more consistent, but you can still brick. You can still come across hand traps to ruin your turn 1 plays. This game isn't down to a perfect science because there are so many variables. 

Like you can disagree with what I say, and that's fine. 

But ultimately, this game has a lot of luck involved that you can't alter no matter how hard you try. 

 

What does any of this have to do with the original post? How sacky an opponent is has nothing to do with any of this.

 

Like don't read the post if you are not into ygo theory. 

 

I personally do not care for this thread, but I'm not going to start throwing down irrelevant points and dismiss what is trying to be said. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Me.    57

Alright, let's humor the 1/100, 0/100 example.

 

When you say the first deck has 100/100 power, you mean it has the potential to win. And it realizes this potential in 1/100 games due to having said consistency.

 

But then, you say the second deck has 1/100 power and I have no idea what this number means. I would like to interpret it as "if you play on this power for 100 games, you should expect to win 1", but that's not how your idea of power works. So I kind of get stuck in deciphering your example here.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DukeLukewarm    121

Alright, let's humor the 1/100, 0/100 example.

 

When you say the first deck has 100/100 power, you mean it has the potential to win. And it realizes this potential in 1/100 games due to having said consistency.

 

But then, you say the second deck has 1/100 power and I have no idea what this number means. I would like to interpret it as "if you play on this power for 100 games, you should expect to win 1", but that's not how your idea of power works. So I kind of get stuck in deciphering your example here.

 

I'd guess it's just an arbitrary value meaning "this deck is weak as shit", rather than something with precise, mathematical meaning. A deck that achieves what it's intended to do every game, but whose end goal is so ineffectual that it's not winning shit anyway.

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.

×