1279444:

As for your second sentence, are you suggesting that you *do* perform excel type calculations during your casual and tournament WoW TCG playing?  If so, how do you manage that level of calculation? 

Actually, I can do probability calculations in my head if I cared, but the point is if you learn the correct answers to these questions you can ballpark the chances even in a casual game. For example, chances of drawing one of 3 remaining Holy Shock with 40 cards remaining if I complete quests to draw 4 cards ... I'd guess about 30%.

Actual answer: 27.73%.

Learn to do the math right and do it enough times and it will becomes useful to you. The truth is, you don't need exact percentages to put together a game plan.

---

IYPCSTSOYMRT

1284658:

1279444:

As for your second sentence, are you suggesting that you *do* perform excel type calculations during your casual and tournament WoW TCG playing?

No, I (and plenty others) are suggesting that we answer the OP's question correctly. Facts cannot be argued. If you want to argue whether the OP is wasting his time making a post about stats that he cannot do practically during tournament play, then I'm sure the OP appreciates your condescending attitude. I find it funny that you, Mr. Wall of Fail, are suggesting we should be taking shortcuts.

So you agree that the mathematics you're giving him is impractical?  If so, why not give him something practical?  I'm also not certain as to your comment about "shortcuts" and myself, are you suggesting that I don't like shortcuts or are you suggesting that you never like using shortcuts?

Also, when is it condescending to give practical advice?  If it is, I'm sorry.  I didn't know that not giving him something that is "true" 85% of the time is enough to make people upset.

---

If they take the ship, they'll rape us to death, eat our flesh, and sew our skins into their clothing. And if we're very, very lucky, they'll do it in that order.
--Zoe, Firefly

lorkac: While Kysuke and others may have been a bit abrasive, you are nonetheless wrong. A deckbuilding question, which is what this one is, can be as complicated as it needs to be because all resources are available. In a tournament match, sure there's shorthand...but I have to point out, shorthand should SIMPLIFY the actual math, and it's destructive to provide answers that are incorrect, based on methods that are also incorrect. The fact that Kysuke and LankyBrit are using more difficult equations doesn't make your answer any less wrong... Shorthand should provide an estimate or approximation of the true answer.

EDIT: Since there have been posts since...practical advice is, by definition, useful. Incorrect methodology, even when given in good spirit, is not useful.

OP: Stu mentioned testing, which is obviously the best way to get these numbers (since it forces you to get better at the game at the same time, lol), but I also combined math with the problem. I'd think about how many quests I wanted to complete in a given game after testing, based on the quests I wanted to play, and then use the HYPGEO formula to figure out the correct number based on drawing that many copies in the draw steps a game would usually take. This was most useful in combination aggro decks like Kil'zin or strike-out, where game-ending turns were simpler to discover. For slower decks, the number I wanted to draw were too difficult to calculate, since it varied significantly by matchup.

Still, after doing the actual calculations a few times, the number estimates become pretty intuitive and I'd let my gut guide me as I played. Stu clearly prefers to determine the answer through feel and experience, and it sounds fine to me.

---

Glenn Jones
Contributing Editor - WoW TCG and WoW Minis

Coverage Writer Extraordinaire
The War Wagon @ www.starcitywow.com
One Card at a Time @ www.wowtcg.com

Season 2 Feralas Realm Champion

I don't think the two are that dissimilar  - You are still looking to see a certain number of a certain type of card by a certain turn. The theory behind why particular numbers being used can be applied.
I agree that Land & Quests are not the same & behave in slightly different ways...but they are close enough that the information is still useful.
I would run less (Quest + card-draw) in a rush deck much as I would run less Land in Weenie deck
I'd run more of either (Quest + card-draw) or Land in a counter-heavy mid-late game deck

The article just looks at why this happens.

apparently wow tcg is far more complicated than rocket science so it's best to just follow what the scientists ordered.. which is 14-16 quest per deck...

---

Trolls are the new Black Mon!

1279444:

Also, when is it condescending to give practical advice?  If it is, I'm sorry.  I didn't know that not giving him something that is "true" 85% of the time is enough to make people upset.

Now I think you're just being stupid on purpose to get a good laugh. You can't be this stupid...

---

My entire collection for sale.

319784:

OP: Stu mentioned testing, which is obviously the best way to get these numbers (since it forces you to get better at the game at the same time, lol), but I also combined math with the problem. I'd think about how many quests I wanted to complete in a given game after testing, based on the quests I wanted to play, and then use the HYPGEO formula to figure out the correct number based on drawing that many copies in the draw steps a game would usually take. This was most useful in combination aggro decks like Kil'zin or strike-out, where game-ending turns were simpler to discover. For slower decks, the number I wanted to draw were too difficult to calculate, since it varied significantly by matchup.

May I ask how do you determine the number of cards you require to win a game? Maybe using Kil'zin an example? I prefer rush decks. :)

Thanks in advance.

1284658:

1279444:

Also, when is it condescending to give practical advice?  If it is, I'm sorry.  I didn't know that not giving him something that is "true" 85% of the time is enough to make people upset.

Now I think you're just being stupid on purpose to get a good laugh. You can't be this stupid...

You've made me see the light, obviously the secret is to always give impractical advice.  To the poster of this thread, if you run 54 quests you'll have at least one quest in your hand 100% of the time!  Don't run any less!  I've finally understood that this game isn't about running the minimum number of cards that you need but that you need to run the number of cards with impressive percentages.  Why have I not known this after all this time.  Thank you Kyuske, if it wasn't for you, I would have been running less than 54 quests in all my decks.  Thank you thank you thank you.

---

If they take the ship, they'll rape us to death, eat our flesh, and sew our skins into their clothing. And if we're very, very lucky, they'll do it in that order.
--Zoe, Firefly

1279444:

To the poster of this thread, if you run 54 quests you'll have at least one quest in your hand 100% of the time!

This is the first mathematical proposition you have in this thread made that is correct (assuming a 60 card deck, of course). You may have meant it to be sarcastic, but the truth is that recognition of the seemingly obvious is the first step towards piercing the veil of the obscure.

Come over to the math geek side, Lorkac. You'll like it, we've got us some quod erat demonstrandum over here! ;)

---

IYPCSTSOYMRT

Seemsl ike there are two reasonable options. Work out properly what the odds of drawing quests based on how many oyu play. You do then need to use this data, working out you draw 2 quests 85% of the time is nice but you still need to know if this is accetable or not.

The other option is to playtest a bunch of games with different numbers of quests.

What isn't useful is using formulas that don't work because you massively simplified them and writing huge walls of useless text.

Or you could just use 14-16 the same as everyone else. I did play a bunch of games with different numbers of quests to figure out those numbers in the first place and the same types of decks function in a similar enough way that you can just take them as given. Yuo might be 1-2 out but running the wrong spell or even quests makes a much bigger difference than having one quest too many.

---

Has made top8 of some events

1576609:

Seemsl ike there are two reasonable options. Work out properly what the odds of drawing quests based on how many oyu play. You do then need to use this data, working out you draw 2 quests 85% of the time is nice but you still need to know if this is accetable or not. The other option is to playtest a bunch of games with different numbers of quests. What isn't useful is using formulas that don't work because you massively simplified them and writing huge walls of useless text. Or you could just use 14-16 the same as everyone else. I did play a bunch of games with different numbers of quests to figure out those numbers in the first place and the same types of decks function in a similar enough way that you can just take them as given. Yuo might be 1-2 out but running the wrong spell or even quests makes a much bigger difference than having one quest too many.

OR

You use a basic and simple percentage calculation to give you a number that works more times than not, and begin your playtest with that.  Let's say, for arguments sake, that the card you happen to want to figure out is quests.  (You still need to perform the same calculations with the other cards in your deck, consistency of abilities drawn, consistency of spells drawn, equipment, etc..., but for now let's just talk about quests since this seems to be the only card you guys enjoy talking about when it comes to math in WoW)

My way starts you off with 9 quests, and then you playtest.  If you feel you need card drawing, add more card drawing, if you want your card drawing to be from quests, have them be from quests it doesn't matter what the source of the card drawing is, so long as the card helps you progress your board position better than the other options.  So by the end of the playtesting session you might end up with a deck with massive card drawing and still 9 quests.  More if you prefer, but its not essential.  Figuring out how you can draw a card 85% of the time is dandy and all, but as you said "working out you draw 2 quests 85% of the time is nice but you still need to know if this is accetable or not."  If the precision of the chance to draw doesn't really matter until you playtest, then it would be much more convenient to have a simplified formula to allow room for more playtesting.  Because in the end, the point is to provide shortcuts.  The point is to be able to do more with the same amount of time given.

---

If they take the ship, they'll rape us to death, eat our flesh, and sew our skins into their clothing. And if we're very, very lucky, they'll do it in that order.
--Zoe, Firefly

888509:

319784:

OP: Stu mentioned testing, which is obviously the best way to get these numbers (since it forces you to get better at the game at the same time, lol), but I also combined math with the problem. I'd think about how many quests I wanted to complete in a given game after testing, based on the quests I wanted to play, and then use the HYPGEO formula to figure out the correct number based on drawing that many copies in the draw steps a game would usually take. This was most useful in combination aggro decks like Kil'zin or strike-out, where game-ending turns were simpler to discover. For slower decks, the number I wanted to draw were too difficult to calculate, since it varied significantly by matchup.

May I ask how do you determine the number of cards you require to win a game? Maybe using Kil'zin an example? I prefer rush decks. :)

Thanks in advance.

This is relatively simple: you playtest, or even goldfish. Gorebelly and Halavar Strikeout were the easiest decks, but Kil'zin isn't too difficult either, depending on version and generation...modern Kil'zin is a pretty complex deck, with cards like Circle of Blood, Joja'bee, etc. providing unpredictable levels of damage/tempo gain. Still, if you play a lot of games it should become easy to identify the turns where you are ahead, and when you begin to fall behind. Usually, there is a "critical turn" or turns where the opponent is capable of stabilizing: this is usually when you either kill the opponent, or fail to.

Let's say that turn is turn six on the play (just a random guess, I haven't tested hardly at all, but it seems reasonable enough to me). That would mean I draw seven cards, plus five more for my draw steps, which gives me 11 draw steps. Now I can calculate the quests needed the same way I did for 7 cards, but for 11 instead (as proposed by LankyBrit, Kysuke, and others). You can factor in excess quests or other elements of draw, I suppose, but the point is to provide a solid estimate to work with, so it's probably not necessary.

1279444:

My way starts you off with 9 quests, and then you playtest.  If you feel you need card drawing, add more card drawing, if you want your card drawing to be from quests, have them be from quests it doesn't matter what the source of the card drawing is, so long as the card helps you progress your board position better than the other options.  So by the end of the playtesting session you might end up with a deck with massive card drawing and still 9 quests.  More if you prefer, but its not essential.  Figuring out how you can draw a card 85% of the time is dandy and all, but as you said "working out you draw 2 quests 85% of the time is nice but you still need to know if this is accetable or not."  If the precision of the chance to draw doesn't really matter until you playtest, then it would be much more convenient to have a simplified formula to allow room for more playtesting.  Because in the end, the point is to provide shortcuts.  The point is to be able to do more with the same amount of time given.

Step one, figuring out if you need card drawing, is what Stu is referring to when he said you need to know if 85% is acceptable. You are defending your argument illogically by adding random factors to consider, hoping you'll hit something math can't answer: he didn't ASK about non-quest draw, or drawing quests less than 85% of the time (which is what running 9 quests would certainly do, a point you haven't addressed in any of your "arguments"), or playtesting to find which quest count is correct...the poster's query assumes the stipulation that 85% is the amount of the time he would like to draw said quests. He has basically said that 85% IS his "acceptable" number, and now he wants to know how many that is. He has been answered. Stop junking his post with arguments as to why using the correct method to find the correct answer to his question is wrong.

---

Glenn Jones
Contributing Editor - WoW TCG and WoW Minis

Coverage Writer Extraordinaire
The War Wagon @ www.starcitywow.com
One Card at a Time @ www.wowtcg.com

Season 2 Feralas Realm Champion

319784:

1279444:

My way starts you off with 9 quests, and then you playtest.  If you feel you need card drawing, add more card drawing, if you want your card drawing to be from quests, have them be from quests it doesn't matter what the source of the card drawing is, so long as the card helps you progress your board position better than the other options.  So by the end of the playtesting session you might end up with a deck with massive card drawing and still 9 quests.  More if you prefer, but its not essential.  Figuring out how you can draw a card 85% of the time is dandy and all, but as you said "working out you draw 2 quests 85% of the time is nice but you still need to know if this is accetable or not."  If the precision of the chance to draw doesn't really matter until you playtest, then it would be much more convenient to have a simplified formula to allow room for more playtesting.  Because in the end, the point is to provide shortcuts.  The point is to be able to do more with the same amount of time given.

Step one, figuring out if you need card drawing, is what Stu is referring to when he said you need to know if 85% is acceptable. You are defending your argument illogically by adding random factors to consider, hoping you'll hit something math can't answer: he didn't ASK about non-quest draw, or drawing quests less than 85% of the time (which is what running 9 quests would certainly do, a point you haven't addressed in any of your "arguments"), or playtesting to find which quest count is correct...the poster's query assumes the stipulation that 85% is the amount of the time he would like to draw said quests. He has basically said that 85% IS his "acceptable" number, and now he wants to know how many that is. He has been answered. Stop junking his post with arguments as to why using the correct method to find the correct answer to his question is wrong.

A.) He said that *if* a percentage was required, let it be 85% percent.  It isn't required. 

B.) I also specifically said that we wont get into calculating non-quests for the sake of argument, but not everyone knows how to read, I get it.

C.) The playtest discussion was in response to the guy I was quoting, but I understand the misunderstanding of when you don't realize I talking to a specific person's comment that playtesting is more important than either the 85% calculation, or my own calculations.  However, since he concluded his statements with the comment of "Just use 14-16 like everyone else" I was attempting to show that someone doesn't *need* to run that many quests and so its better to use a simple calculation to give a rough estimate than it is to just stuff a deck with a random number of quest.

D.) I have not even once suggested that you're guy's calculations are wrong.  I simply said that it was unnecessary.  First, because the 85% stipulation was a suggested number, and second, because giving him such binding statements of "You must use X amount of quest to draw your cards" is ridiculous.  9 quest will give him a quest in his opening hand more times then not, if he wants it to happen more often, add more quest.  When he gets to 17, he'll be drawing two quests more often than not.  In fact, the only thing you guys are upset by is the fact that my answer does not take into account the unneccesary 85%.

C.) If I'm reading this thread correctly, I'm the only one that you guys enjoy calling wrong.  Not that I mind per say; but you seem to get so irritated that I disregarded the 85% in my calculations.  It's like watching a fireman rush out of your burning home with your child, and then accusing him of kidnapping and assault.  But that's niether here nor there.

---

If they take the ship, they'll rape us to death, eat our flesh, and sew our skins into their clothing. And if we're very, very lucky, they'll do it in that order.
--Zoe, Firefly

You used a very simple method that didn't answer the question in any useful way. You seems to love a wall of text but that doesn't make you any less wrong. The reason why we are only calling you wrong is because you are the only person claiming to answer the question who is wrong.

You say that people don't need to run that many quests yet people do are they all wrong and could run less? or maybe you have no idea what you are talking about.

---

Has made top8 of some events

1279444:

A.) He said that *if* a percentage was required, let it be 85% percent.  It isn't required.

888509:

Question 1: How many quest do I need to have in a 60 card deck to get 1 quest card in my starting hand of 7?

(If a percentage is required, use 85%)

How is the percentage NOT required? The answer to his question is obviously 54, if you ignore the percentage. His intent, as you have clearly inferred, was "How many quests do I need to CONSISTENTLY get 1 quest in my starting hand?" He then defined the parameter of consistency he would like as 85%. Your 8.5 (or 9) is no more valid an answer than 10, 11, 12, or 13 for his question: ALL of those numbers will draw him a quest "more often than not." You have to have a parameter to answer the question successfully at all.

1279444:

B.) I also specifically said that we wont get into calculating non-quests for the sake of argument, but not everyone knows how to read, I get it.

I pointed out you were bringing up those other topics specifically as a distraction; I didn't calculate or advise calculating them. I Specifically said he asked them NOT to be calculated. You're right, apparently everyone doesn't know how to read.

1279444:

C.) The playtest discussion was in response to the guy I was quoting, but I understand the misunderstanding of when you don't realize I talking to a specific person's comment that playtesting is more important than either the 85% calculation, or my own calculations.  However, since he concluded his statements with the comment of "Just use 14-16 like everyone else" I was attempting to show that someone doesn't *need* to run that many quests and so its better to use a simple calculation to give a rough estimate than it is to just stuff a deck with a random number of quest.

Your calculation, which is debatably simple compared to writing "HYPGEO" and the parameters into an Excel spreadsheet (clearly we can all type), is flawed. That's the reason why it is worse...compare it to the reasoned calculations used. It's just bad math. The "14-16 like everyone else" was actually arrived at, early in the game's history, in part thanks to players using HYPGEO and playing decks with those parameters. Because the math and the gameplay corroborated one another.

1279444:

D.) I have not even once suggested that you're guy's calculations are wrong.  I simply said that it was unnecessary.  First, because the 85% stipulation was a suggested number, and second, because giving him such binding statements of "You must use X amount of quest to draw your cards" is ridiculous.  9 quest will give him a quest in his opening hand more times then not, if he wants it to happen more often, add more quest.  When he gets to 17, he'll be drawing two quests more often than not.  In fact, the only thing you guys are upset by is the fact that my answer does not take into account the unneccesary 85%.

A parameter is necessary to answer the question. I covered this in point A). already. No one said "You must use blahblahblah," they merely answered his question: that 14 quests would give him the ballpark 85% he asked for.

1279444:

C.) If I'm reading this thread correctly, I'm the only one that you guys enjoy calling wrong.  Not that I mind per say; but you seem to get so irritated that I disregarded the 85% in my calculations.  It's like watching a fireman rush out of your burning home with your child, and then accusing him of kidnapping and assault.  But that's niether here nor there.

As Stu said, you are the only one who is wrong, and you keep asserting that you are somehow right. So it's more like watching a fireman run into the house, cut up a baby with his axe, and bring the burning door to the crying parents.

In the alphabet, an "E.)" would go here, by the way.

---

Glenn Jones
Contributing Editor - WoW TCG and WoW Minis

Coverage Writer Extraordinaire
The War Wagon @ www.starcitywow.com
One Card at a Time @ www.wowtcg.com

Season 2 Feralas Realm Champion