1576609:

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.

I answered his questions.

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

9 will give you a good chance to get one quest in your opening hand.

"Substitute the 1 quest card to 2."

17 will give you a good chance of getting two quests in your opening hand.

Neither one is 85%, but then again he said that we should only care about that number *if* it is necessary; which it isn't.

"(If a percentage is required, use 85%)"

I'm also correct that not all decks need to run lots of quests.  We've seen it as low as 6 and as high as 18.  It's based on what you're playtesting/playstyle tells you.  However, in order to reach that conclusion one must playtest.  The percentage he placed there is untested.  We know because of the way he asked it "If a percentage is required" not "Oh, by the way, my constant testing has told me that it is vital that I get at least one quest in my opening hand a game."  It was an arbitrary number, and hence, unessential to his base question.  "How many quests do I need to get a decent chance of getting a quest in my opening hand."

However, since you seem to automatically believe that by someone saying "If" that what they mean is "It has to be this way period end of story," then there is no way you're going to look at variant possible answers to his questions.

If he needs to run more quests, let him find out by playtesting.  Don't let his arbitrary statements define your mode of thought.  If he wanted to know how many quests he needed to consistently draw quests, that's a completely different answer; but that was not the question he asked wasn't it?

And yes, I used a simple formula.  One that requires neither a calculator, nor scratch paper.  One that requires less thinking than dropping change into a coin slot.  It doesn't require him to learn statistics, nor does it require him to learn excel spreadsheets, use calculators, etc...  It requires him to use basic grade school math to get answers that are accurate more times than not.

And you guys keep thinking that what I write are walls of text when in honesty this isn't really that much writing.  Unless you guys have a hard time reading that is, it's okay if you do; no one here will judge you for it.  Someone being verbose does not connotate either correctness or wrongness, it's simply someone talking.  If you seem to think that there is an elitist mindset out there that suggest loquaciousness is a measuring factor of someone's "intellect," then I would understand that.  But in honesty, that someone talks a lot should not be a defining characteristic of his rightness or wrongness.  That you don't like reading someone else's opinions and enjoy tossing the phrase "wall of text" to justify your unwillingness to read variant philosophies of understanding objects, events and experiences, I think that means that something might be wrong with you.  Unless you think it's okay to believe that the only opinions out there that are correct are your own and anything else is just heretical and requires burning at the stake; then it would make sense why you guys seem to enjoy using the phrase "wall of text."

---

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

A good chance to draw it is absurdly vague and pretty useless.

Won't 8 quests give you a good chance to draw one, as you aren't saying what a "good" chance even means. The answer you gave is so vague as to be useless. You talk about arbitrary statements and that is exactly what your number is arbitrary you could have just said 27 quests and it would have been based on about as much logic.

We keep using wall of text because you seem to enjoy the sound of your own voice a bit too much. You talk and talk but what you are saying is just wrong. The fact that nobody is agreeing with you and a bunch of people are disagreeing should be a hint.

---

Has made top8 of some events

319784:

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.

Telling him run 54 quests will simply give him 7 quests in his hand more times then not.  On lucky days, he would get 1 non-quest.  That was not his question.  If you think that's what he was asking if you take what he said overly literally, then you need to reread the question.

The reason I was pointing out those other non-quest cards was to emphasize a point, that it's much easier to have something simple in order to finish calculating rough numbers faster, in order to get to playtesting quicker.

My simple calculation, which is very much simpler than going to a program, typing out parameters, letting the program run through the subroutines, display an answer, and then assimilate that answer, answers his question the most directly and concisely. 

You want to get one quest more times than not?  9 quest.  If had asked for turns beyond the opening hand, asked for consistency of quest retrieval, etc.... then it would be a different answer.  But just one quest in the opening hand more times than not, run at least 9.  Proof of successful decks that used my formula?  Magic the Gathering's 9-Land Stompy where it would, more times than not, draw at least 1 land in its opening hand.  More proof?  Running 8 removal spells will usually net you 1-2 of them within the first 3 turns or so.  Why?  Because my "simple calculation" works more times than not.

Thank you for the C => E correction; I've had the flu for the past few days and I sometimes get tired.

---

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

That example is soo awkward. As 9 land stompy in fact ran 13 lands (land grant is a land)

So they decided for a deck that wanted one land in the opener 13 was the correct number.

---

Has made top8 of some events

1576609:

A good chance to draw it is absurdly vague and pretty useless. Won't 8 quests give you a good chance to draw one, as you aren't saying what a "good" chance even means. The answer you gave is so vague as to be useless. You talk about arbitrary statements and that is exactly what your number is arbitrary you could have just said 27 quests and it would have been based on about as much logic. We keep using wall of text because you seem to enjoy the sound of your own voice a bit too much. You talk and talk but what you are saying is just wrong. The fact that nobody is agreeing with you and a bunch of people are disagreeing should be a hint.

8 quests would give you a good chance.  8.5 was the number reached remember, that means 8-9 quests.  I know its easy to forget basic math, but grade school was probably a long time ago for you.

I couldn't have said 27 because that would give him more than 1 quest in his opening hand more times than not.  That means it wouldn't answer the question.

I do enjoy the sound of my own voice, I do like talking.  It's called my personality.  People have those you know, variant ways of perceiving both the other and the self.  And so far, the only reason why you guys say I'm wrong is because I didn't give him a number that is 85% accurate, which was not necessary to his question.  I gave him the most helpful response I could for him to start playtesting from.  By telling him that its okay to run 9 quests as opposed to 14, he would have 5 more slots he could fiddle with if all he needed was the opening 1 quest in his hand. 

---

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

1576609:

That example is soo awkward. As 9 land stompy in fact ran 13 lands (land grant is a land) So they decided for a deck that wanted one land in the opener 13 was the correct number.

The deck also ran Wasteland and Strip Mines which, despite *being lands* don't actually help them out and were more land destruction spells than anything else.  Thanks for playing though.

---

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

Most of your last onw was irrelevant, but you did annoy me with this:

1279444:

I answered his questions.

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

9 will give you a good chance to get one quest in your opening hand.

1279444:

We know because of the way he asked it "If a percentage is required" not "Oh, by the way, my constant testing has told me that it is vital that I get at least one quest in my opening hand a game."  It was an arbitrary number, and hence, unessential to his base question.  "How many quests do I need to get a decent chance of getting a quest in my opening hand."

Nice misquoting! The way you twist his words and intentions, by pretending you actually know what he thought or how he devised his question: sweet! [/sarcasm] He didn't ask, "How many quests do I need to have in a 60 card deck to have a 'good chance' of drawing a quest?" Nor did he ask about the "decent chance" you attributed him afterward. Gosh, if he had asked those things, your answer would have been valid, even with your hokey method, since "good" and "decent" are relative terms you can define however you want! Aw shucks, too bad that's not how it actually was worded...

He defined the "chance" he wanted in the next sentence. You can't answer the question without defining the favorable odds required; do you really not get this? It's IMPOSSIBLE to have a concrete answer without a concrete parameter! You have admitted this (I'm sure without intent) by including "good" and "decent" in your misquotes as parameters, but they simply AREN'T, because they are undefined and based on opinion. Look at the variant answers, lol. I pointed out your 8.5 makes just as much sense as, well, any number from 1-54, excluding 14 (because it makes MORE sense based on his parameters). All of those numbers give him a "good shot," depending on the definition of "good." I could have told him that the answer was any equation that adds up to any number between 1 and 54...because those all could qualify as a "good" number of quests.

Ex: "How many quests should I run?"

"The answer is always the number of cards in your deck, minus 48. But playtest to fine-tune it." There's a simple equation. Doesn't make it reasonable or correct... The equation you crafted is similarly relevant.

I'm kind of done trying to explain this, since it feels like you're just doing the prideful "I said something, and now I have to defend it no matter what because the universe will crash otherwise." And actually plugging words into other people's mouths is, as a writer, something that really pisses me off. If you have an actual question, I'll be glad to answer it, but at this point it really seems like you understand why you are wrong and are just fighting to make corner-cases where you aren't, which is the pointless act of an arrogant person.

EDIT: Nearly forgot the point of this entire argument: kids, don't use lorkac's equation. It's bad math, based on a flawed premise.

---

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

For a guy who writes a lot, you lack reading comprehension. Why not ask the OP himself what he meant by his question?

Actually, we already know. He liked our answers. You lose, no matter how long your wall of text is.

---

My entire collection for sale.

319784:

Most of your last onw was irrelevant, but you did annoy me with this:

1279444:

I answered his questions.

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

9 will give you a good chance to get one quest in your opening hand.

1279444:

We know because of the way he asked it "If a percentage is required" not "Oh, by the way, my constant testing has told me that it is vital that I get at least one quest in my opening hand a game."  It was an arbitrary number, and hence, unessential to his base question.  "How many quests do I need to get a decent chance of getting a quest in my opening hand."

Nice misquoting! The way you twist his words and intentions, by pretending you actually know what he thought or how he devised his question: sweet! [/sarcasm] He didn't ask, "How many quests do I need to have in a 60 card deck to have a 'good chance' of drawing a quest?" Nor did he ask about the "decent chance" you attributed him afterward. Gosh, if he had asked those things, your answer would have been valid, even with your hokey method, since "good" and "decent" are relative terms you can define however you want! Aw shucks, too bad that's not how it actually was worded...

He defined the "chance" he wanted in the next sentence. You can't answer the question without defining the favorable odds required; do you really not get this? It's IMPOSSIBLE to have a concrete answer without a concrete parameter! You have admitted this (I'm sure without intent) by including "good" and "decent" in your misquotes as parameters, but they simply AREN'T, because they are undefined and based on opinion. Look at the variant answers, lol. I pointed out your 8.5 makes just as much sense as, well, any number from 1-54, excluding 14 (because it makes MORE sense based on his parameters). All of those numbers give him a "good shot," depending on the definition of "good." I could have told him that the answer was any equation that adds up to any number between 1 and 54...because those all could qualify as a "good" number of quests.

Ex: "How many quests should I run?"

"The answer is always the number of cards in your deck, minus 48. But playtest to fine-tune it." There's a simple equation. Doesn't make it reasonable or correct... The equation you crafted is similarly relevant.

I'm kind of done trying to explain this, since it feels like you're just doing the prideful "I said something, and now I have to defend it no matter what because the universe will crash otherwise." And actually plugging words into other people's mouths is, as a writer, something that really pisses me off. If you have an actual question, I'll be glad to answer it, but at this point it really seems like you understand why you are wrong and are just fighting to make corner-cases where you aren't, which is the pointless act of an arrogant person.

I understood that he was asking for decent chance of drawing a quest because he wouldn't have asked about number of quests to place in a deck otherwise.  To get a chance at all of getting one quest in your opening hand is 1.  That wouldn't be helpful to him.  14 would give him that 85% chance you guys enjoy clinging to, but he doesn't need that many to have the majority of his draws have 1 quest.  He then asked for a mathematical reasoning for the conclusions made, which I gave him.  I could have said that there have been decks out there that ran 8-9 quests/lands and usually drew 1 of them in their opening hand, but that was not the type of reasoning he was asking for.

Your version of a simple equation would also give him a deck that would draw one land more times than not.  But simply having numbers in a sentence doesn't make it a mathematical formula, which is what he was asking for.  You can't tell him a number that's too high, because he would starting seeing more than 1 quest in his opening hand consistently.  Nor could you make it too low because it becomes almost impossible to get a quest at all in the opening hand.  If you honestly took his question without projecting a certain level of presumptions of his intent, then the answer would be 1.  That would give him a chance to draw 1 quest in his opening hand.  You didn't say that, no one did, because they know that that wasn't what he was asking for.  However, him stating that "if" your so called parameters are necessary, then to follow with it.  However they aren't.  Because one could easily just point out past decklists that ran a low number of quests that usually gave them 1 quest/land in their opening hands without using math at all.  So we know for a fact, because those decks are out there, and they were competitive for their time, that to have a quest in your opening hand consistently based on actual decklists out there is 8-9.  Most decks run more, some run less.

And yes, I am beginning to feel defensive.  You guys have spent the last several pages berating me for not following the unnecessary 85% number he just threw in there.  As if the possibility of a variant response is so disgusting to you that you spend time repeatedly telling the person he is wrong.

---

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

1284658:

For a guy who writes a lot, you lack reading comprehension. Why not ask the OP himself what he meant by his question? Actually, we already know. He liked our answers. You lose, no matter how long your wall of text is.

Him liking your answer doesn't mean I misunderstood his question.  It simply means he prefers your answer.  If I asked someone for $100 and he gave me $1000 I wouldn't get mad at him for understanding my question.

I'm also beginning to be annoyed by this supposed "wall of text" thing because I honestly don't write that much.  A series of paragraphs that can fit in a greeting card is not a lot of words.  And stop suggesting that length of text assumes correctness; unless you think it yourself it mostly just makes you sound like a bully who is wasting his time on a forum talking to someone he supposedly doesn't want to talk to.  Which is, in and of itself, weird.

---

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:

You want to get one quest more times than not?  9 quest.  If had asked for turns beyond the opening hand, asked for consistency of quest retrieval, etc.... then it would be a different answer.  But just one quest in the opening hand more times than not, run at least 9.  Proof of successful decks that used my formula?  Magic the Gathering's 9-Land Stompy where it would, more times than not, draw at least 1 land in its opening hand.  More proof?  Running 8 removal spells will usually net you 1-2 of them within the first 3 turns or so.  Why?  Because my "simple calculation" works more times than not.

If you're going to say "more times than not" you're talking a 51% chance. That's your parameter you're using. You've tried to make that very clear. You cannot deny that your "more times than not" means 51% chance. You've subconsciously done what we've all been doing mathematically - given a parameter, because you need that parameter or whatever you say is meaningless.

He said "if a percentage is required". It is. We've established that now. He asked for 85%. You've stated that you've given for 51%. Even though you said it in words, that's the parameter you chose. The answer you've actually given is 70%. Where are you correct, at all?

You can't just throw random numbers and calculations out either. If you're going to use maths, use the right maths. Simple as that. You can't jump on our backs for using the correct methods and formulae, and especially can't convince us that your method is more practical. Wrong is not practical. Unnecessary over-simplification is not practical. Does the OP need to understand our method, the calculations we did to get to the answer we gave? No. We don't even understand it ourselves, we just typed it into a calculator. All he needs to know is that it's correct.

The reason people are jumping on your back is because of this, that nothing you've said really is correct. And that you're not only denying this, you're trying to convince us that you gave the best answer. Just take a step back, look over your posts, find out what people are "flaming" you for, and don't do it in future. All of this could be avoided. I know, we've all had our share of moments like this, I certainly have, but we learn and move on.

---

2192038:

Just take a step back, look over your posts,

That would take him like, 48 hrs at least man

---

Props to darknesspwns for the sig

Regular events at Arcade Games Adelaide - PM me

2192038:

1279444:

You want to get one quest more times than not?  9 quest.  If had asked for turns beyond the opening hand, asked for consistency of quest retrieval, etc.... then it would be a different answer.  But just one quest in the opening hand more times than not, run at least 9.  Proof of successful decks that used my formula?  Magic the Gathering's 9-Land Stompy where it would, more times than not, draw at least 1 land in its opening hand.  More proof?  Running 8 removal spells will usually net you 1-2 of them within the first 3 turns or so.  Why?  Because my "simple calculation" works more times than not.

If you're going to say "more times than not" you're talking a 51% chance. That's your parameter you're using. You've tried to make that very clear. You cannot deny that your "more times than not" means 51% chance. You've subconsciously done what we've all been doing mathematically - given a parameter, because you need that parameter or whatever you say is meaningless.

He said "if a percentage is required". It is. We've established that now. He asked for 85%. You've stated that you've given for 51%. Even though you said it in words, that's the parameter you chose. The answer you've actually given is 70%. Where are you correct, at all?

You can't just throw random numbers and calculations out either. If you're going to use maths, use the right maths. Simple as that. You can't jump on our backs for using the correct methods and formulae, and especially can't convince us that your method is more practical. Wrong is not practical. Unnecessary over-simplification is not practical. Does the OP need to understand our method, the calculations we did to get to the answer we gave? No. We don't even understand it ourselves, we just typed it into a calculator. All he needs to know is that it's correct.

The reason people are jumping on your back is because of this, that nothing you've said really is correct. And that you're not only denying this, you're trying to convince us that you gave the best answer. Just take a step back, look over your posts, find out what people are "flaming" you for, and don't do it in future. All of this could be avoided. I know, we've all had our share of moments like this, I certainly have, but we learn and move on.

51% is not my parameter.  That decks have won tournaments on this many quests or lands is my parameter.  But he was asking for a mathematical explanation, I gave him one.  Why was I willing to give him such a number, because its a number that has worked before.

You also have not established the need for an 85% chance to draw 1 quest other than "you say so."  Someone else has already indicated that knowing you will draw a quest in your opening hand 85% of the time does not mean that your deck needs it to be drawn 85% of the time until after playtesting.  Knowing what precise percentage to aim for does not mean that it is what is necessary.  What is necessary is playtesting your deck, to playtest you need rough numbers to give you a base.  That the number I gave him is not 85% consistent is not as important as it is a number that has both proven succesful, and is as good enough a number as any to begin playtesting. 

You have already admitted that most of you do not really understand how those numbers work, that you just plug it into a calculator and hope for the best.  If this were really the case, do you honestly believe that people would get this incensed about this?  Something about numbers is making these WoW players very upset and I am not really sure what this is.  Just look at the front page of this forum.  Only two threads are really getting hits so its not like these folks are busy doing what they can shove statistics down the throat of any other poster.

As for the flames; in order for me to be wrong the 85% would have to be the core requirement of his request.  It was not.  It was actually tacked on, disconnected from the interrogative statement.  What is getting me confused is why people are upset that I chose to disregard the unnecessary portion of his requests.  You guys wanting to get mad at me, fine, join the club.  Getting mad at me because my answer was different from yours, that is kind of weird.

---

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:

1576609:

That example is soo awkward. As 9 land stompy in fact ran 13 lands (land grant is a land)

So they decided for a deck that wanted one land in the opener 13 was the correct number.

The deck also ran Wasteland and Strip Mines which, despite *being lands* don't actually help them out and were more land destruction spells than anything else.  Thanks for playing though.

Nice to see you have no clue about other things as well. I have no clue what deck you are talking about but the deck know as 9 land stompy did not play waste or strip and certainly not both. There wasn't even a format where you could play wastelands and stripmines. Did oyu just hope no-one knew what you were talking about because what you said is just not true and it was absurd to think you could get away with it.

---

Has made top8 of some events

1279444:

1576609:

A good chance to draw it is absurdly vague and pretty useless.

Won't 8 quests give you a good chance to draw one, as you aren't saying what a "good" chance even means. The answer you gave is so vague as to be useless. You talk about arbitrary statements and that is exactly what your number is arbitrary you could have just said 27 quests and it would have been based on about as much logic.

We keep using wall of text because you seem to enjoy the sound of your own voice a bit too much. You talk and talk but what you are saying is just wrong. The fact that nobody is agreeing with you and a bunch of people are disagreeing should be a hint.

8 quests would give you a good chance.  8.5 was the number reached remember, that means 8-9 quests.  I know its easy to forget basic math, but grade school was probably a long time ago for you.

I couldn't have said 27 because that would give him more than 1 quest in his opening hand more times than not.  That means it wouldn't answer the question.

I do enjoy the sound of my own voice, I do like talking.  It's called my personality.  People have those you know, variant ways of perceiving both the other and the self.  And so far, the only reason why you guys say I'm wrong is because I didn't give him a number that is 85% accurate, which was not necessary to his question.  I gave him the most helpful response I could for him to start playtesting from.  By telling him that its okay to run 9 quests as opposed to 14, he would have 5 more slots he could fiddle with if all he needed was the opening 1 quest in his hand. 

Your basic math just doesn't give a sensible answer. You keep saying a good chance like it is some technical term rather than just meaning whatever you want it to mean. Basic probability is not just divding 60 by 8.

The reason why we say you are wrong becasue your answer is at best useless and at worst misleading. Your responce was in fact not helpful as he would be better off starting with a normal number of quests that other peope have found from playtesting other decks.

---

Has made top8 of some events