Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

76

GokoDom / Re: Gokodom IV this summer?

« on: February 13, 2015, 07:01:09 pm »

^You're missing a couple (slightly less logical) options:

5. I'm in league but I will only play GD if the league is NOT paused.
6. I will quit league altogether if it is paused.

77

Hearthstone / Re: IsoHearth I: Nkirbit Wins!

« on: February 12, 2015, 02:07:23 pm »

mikohoy 3 - bkirbit 2

Now that we're all done, are deck lists going to be posted? It would be interesting if everyone knew how the deck matchups went.

This one was
me : TA
warlock < shaman
paladin > warrior
warlock < warrior
priest > hunter
warlock > hunter

vs nick was:
warlock < warrior
paladin < mage
paladin < hunter

vs pops I don't quite remember, but I think it was:
warlock > priest
paladin > warrior
priest > priest

78

GokoDom / Re: Gokodom IV this summer?

« on: February 12, 2015, 12:51:48 pm »

Both formats have their merits and it would be nice to be able to have both, though I guess that puts a lot of stress on people who are in both to schedule 2 matches per week...

League is nice for allowing you to play a lot of matches against people of similar skill to you, so it's better for you as a player. But the allure of the tournament is that it's more interesting for people who aren't even in it. You get that bracket and try to predict winners and there's a sense of build-up. And if you're in it, you can see a more direct effect of other people's matches on you, so you have a greater investment in games that don't involve you. It's a completely different meta-experience so you trade off some quality of games for external interest. Obviously people weight these benefits differently, so I doubt anyone is going to convince anyone else that one format is objectively "better" than the other.

There should probably some sort of poll of the people in League to see if they want to pause for a tournament or not.

79

Hearthstone / Re: Hearthstone Online Resources

« on: February 12, 2015, 10:59:01 am »

From other threads:
http://www.heartharena.com/tierlist
http://hearthstoneplayers.com/contributor/adwcta/
https://tempostorm.com/articles (has the magicamy constructed tier list)

80

Help! / Re: World Cup match, so confused

« on: February 11, 2015, 01:16:08 pm »

The reason for that statement is that the main thing to look for in Black Market kingdoms is not the contents of the Black Market deck, but the cycling available in the kingdom. If you can cycle a lot, you can play the Black Market and the things you get out of it enough that it's good no matter what. And if you can't cycle fast enough, even if you get something good out, you won't be able to play it enough to make a big enough difference.

This is mostly true, except that without good cycling, there is some probability that you will get something good soon enough, depending on the contents, and you have to weigh this against the alternatives, so it's possible that you might want the Black Market even when you can't cycle that well.

81

Hearthstone / Re: Hearthstone World Championships

« on: February 11, 2015, 01:31:07 am »

Yeah it creates an interesting meta-game that we won't really see develop until the format shows up in a bunch of tournaments.

After thinking about it, I don't like it. It's more fun to have a set of decks that are good against different things.

82

Hearthstone / Re: Hearthstone World Championships

« on: February 10, 2015, 01:09:45 pm »

Strategically, I think it makes sense to have 3 decks all with the same (narrow) weakness if possible. Since that deck can only win one game, and that doesn't eliminate any of your decks, you can just let it go and focus on winning all the other matchups. For example, if you have 3 decks that always lose to Hunter and Mage, but always beat everything else, you can't lose, since at most you will have 2 losses, and your decks will all beat whatever he has left.

Another angle: what if you picked out a deck that is pretty popular, and designed three decks that all destroyed that deck?  If the player brings that deck with them and can't get a win with it, they lose.  So like, if murlocs was really popular, you could play three decks that all had hungry crab x2 and young brewmaster x2 and you would lose to everything but murlocs then beat the murlocs three times.

A victim as cut and dry as murloc isn't currently popular, but maybe you could work something out.  Kodo spam for Warrior's acolytes? Three fatigue decks in anticipation of Warlock?

The risk here is that if they don't have that deck, you might be in trouble. Potentially everyone will make their deck selection narrow. In more traditional formats, everyone might bring a druid, but here people may specifically avoid it.

83

Hearthstone / Re: Hearthstone World Championships

« on: February 10, 2015, 01:06:53 pm »

Yeah, once you win with a deck you can't use it again.

84

Hearthstone / Re: IsoHearth I: Starting Tomorrow

« on: February 09, 2015, 03:10:29 pm »

Yeah. Round Robin is 6 games. Double elim is 6 + P(LB winner beats WB winner)

85

Hearthstone / Re: IsoHearth I: Starting Tomorrow

« on: February 09, 2015, 12:52:37 pm »

This is a single example of a win probability matrix, and it's clear that player 1 is the best because he is 50%+ in all matchups.
So any reasonable format should have him win more of the time, and the one that involves more games will increase that chance. This is not particularly interesting.

In fact, let's make this super mathy...
Let the win probability matrix be a random variable X, and call the max wieght row k
Let the format be a mapping f:X-->y, where y is the win probability vector.

In this example it seems we are trying to maximize y(k) subject to X=A.

But I contend this is not what we want to maximize. What we want is that the random winner be the best predictor of the best player, that is:
maximize P(A(i) >= A(j) for all rows j | z = i, where z is drawn from the distribution given by y).

By making A non-random, this example doesn't really show anything.

86

Hearthstone / Re: IsoHearth I: Starting Tomorrow

« on: February 09, 2015, 12:18:48 pm »

Rule clarification questions:
1. Are we supposed to reveal what our 3 classes are before the match or not?
2. What is the timeframe for the "rounds" and does the order matter?

87

Hearthstone / Re: IsoHearth I: Starting Tomorrow

« on: February 09, 2015, 12:18:10 pm »

Round 1 Match 2 0-3
(mikohoy>kirbyhero)

88

Hearthstone / Re: IsoHearth I: Starting Tomorrow

« on: February 09, 2015, 12:17:00 pm »

Supose more probable win distribution. Here's results for both round robin and double elimination (calculated, not simulated):

Win probabilities
1   0.0   0.6   0.7   0.8
2   0.4   0.0   0.6   0.7
3   0.3   0.4   0.0   0.6
4   0.2   0.3   0.4   0.0
Round robin
Advance
1 0.7651199999999999
2 0.59824
3 0.40175999999999995
4 0.23488
Win
1 0.47312
2 0.28424
3 0.16176000000000004
4 0.08088
Double elimination
Advance
1 0.7858400000000001
2 0.6075466666666668
3 0.39245333333333327
4 0.21416000000000004
Win
1 0.5531754666666664
2 0.2763130666666666
3 0.1245696
4 0.04594186666666668

So both if we need to determine 2 advances and if we need to determine single winner double elimination is better. In case you provided there is no difference between double elimination and round robin - only the fact that however was paired with trash was decided by draw and not by skill, but supposedly skills are same

I'm not sure how you judge that double elimination is better based on that. The winner distribution is lower entropy because more games are played, and by averaging over all potential initial brackets you avoided the major issue which is the impact of the initial matchup. The problem is that the result depends too much on who plays whom first.

89

Hearthstone / Re: Constructed General Discussion

« on: February 08, 2015, 06:46:40 pm »

Yeah, thanks for linking the list! I imagine this kind of thing is a nightmare to assemble and maintain, so you have to take everything in it with a pretty sizeable helping of salt, but it's nice to at least have some sort of base reference.

Regarding Gallywix, I think he's fine is 6 is a normal part of your curve, which it shouldn't be. You have no real chance of winning a control matchup without some sort of burst. With the death of the Leeroy+Shadowstep combo, Oil seems to offer the best chance, though I have seen some people still try to use Malygos. Either way, once you're past 5 on the mana curve, you usually want to be drawing cards, not just putting up big minions, so the only 6-drop you really see is Auctioneer (I think 1 Auctioneer and 1 Sprint is probably better than either alone).

There is another thing I'm trying, but haven't really figured out yet that uses Argent Commander and Piloted Sky Golem at 6 to just apply heavy face pressure at that point in the curve -- kind of a delayed face deck, using the good Rogue early game defense (Backstab, SI:7, Deadly Poison, Eviscerate) to transition into a face deck that is less likely to run out of steam (still has Oil). Might be terrible though. We'll see.

90

Hearthstone / Re: IsoHearth I: Starting Tomorrow

« on: February 08, 2015, 06:27:09 pm »

^consider 4 players called rock, paper, scissors, and trash. Trash loses to everything, and the rest is standard RPS. Whoever plays vs Trash first will win. Draw out the bracket. He will never have to face the deck that beats him, since that deck will be stuck in the losers bracket with his best matchup nowhere in sight.

91

Hearthstone / Re: Constructed General Discussion

« on: February 06, 2015, 03:42:00 pm »

The thing is you want Tinkertown and Mech Yeti to get spare parts to draw into more mechs. And you want to dump a lot of cards quickly. Heavy draw cards are good if you expend all your cards winning the board, and then use the draw to refill while you still have the board pressure. A "normal" Priest deck won't make good use of the draw.

92

Hearthstone / Re: Constructed General Discussion

« on: February 06, 2015, 01:49:35 pm »

I actually crafted Gazlowe because I thought it would be fun, but I didn't find it that compelling. I was trying a Mech priest, since you like the extra Mechs with the Upgraded Repairbot, and you have a fair number of good 1 mana cost spells. Anyway, I wish I had my dust back to make an actual good card like Sneed's.

93

Hearthstone / Re: 2015: Best Hearthstone Moments

« on: February 05, 2015, 06:43:30 pm »

Even in arena, I think I see it less often than Kidnapper  and Foresight.

No way. Those cards are up a rarity and way worse. I have definitely picked blessed champion way more than the other 2. It's definitely arena playable.

94

Hearthstone / Re: 2015: Best Hearthstone Moments

« on: February 05, 2015, 12:15:57 am »

They don't want people to play it, so they overpriced it.

95

Hearthstone / Re: Hearthstone World Championships

« on: February 04, 2015, 01:42:05 pm »

Strategically, I think it makes sense to have 3 decks all with the same (narrow) weakness if possible. Since that deck can only win one game, and that doesn't eliminate any of your decks, you can just let it go and focus on winning all the other matchups. For example, if you have 3 decks that always lose to Hunter and Mage, but always beat everything else, you can't lose, since at most you will have 2 losses, and your decks will all beat whatever he has left.

96

Hearthstone / Re: IsoHearth I: Signup Thread

« on: February 04, 2015, 11:57:53 am »

mikohoy#1464

You should update the OP.

97

Hearthstone / Re: Hearthstone World Championships

« on: February 04, 2015, 11:56:19 am »

So yeah, I don't like this format because since winner must change decks and loser may change, it seems like there is little strategy involved in selecting your deck. You don't ever get to select a deck based on matchup. It's much more like just playing ladder. I guess this is good from the perspective that it's more like ladder, if that's something to be desired...

98

Hearthstone / Re: 2015: Best Hearthstone Moments

« on: February 04, 2015, 11:30:22 am »

This guy just played a 41/7 Bolvar...

99

Game Reports / Re: Two Chapels? Yes please!

« on: February 03, 2015, 08:48:02 pm »

When people say that buying a second chapel means something has gone wrong, they don't mean that the act of buying the second chapel was the incorrect play. In fact, if your turn produces only $2 and you have to choose between chapel and nothing, chapel is quite often the right choice. The thing is, something must have gone wrong for that position to come up in the first place. Sometimes it's just bad luck, but often you made a poor choice earlier along.

Here it's pretty clear where you went wrong. You had no economy. When you get to open chapel + cultist, you have to do so, but you have to be aware that ntheater of those cards gains or produces coins, so you have to address this in your subsequent buys. Turn 3/4 you need silver. Then you can buy cultist turn 5 and shanty town turn 6 and you're on your way to your draw engine which can reliably draw and trash junk, and you can get better use of your 1st (and hopefully only) chapel.

100

Hearthstone / Re: Critique a Deck:

« on: February 02, 2015, 01:34:20 pm »

The Sylvanas nerf made her worse for Zoo, which was very popular at the time, since you don't want to curve all the way up to 6 mana, but she remained good in higher curve decks. She also got better now that everyone runs Belchers and Shredders, because she fully kills them, plus something else and gets you a token.

Regarding the deck, I think you should have a second Consecration in any Paladin deck. And your curve is low enough that Divine Favor might be better than Lay on Hands. Also I assume you don't have Tirion, because he's a slam dunk in a redemption deck.