1576609:

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.

This explains the wall of text. When you have nothing of substance to say, blabber away and drown people in a sea of text.

---

My entire collection for sale.

1576609:

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.

type one stompy was in the 9 land variety and used strip mines and wastelands. Legacy stompy, was different because there weren't as many combo decks and so a rush deck couldn't simply just go balls to the wall. It was more stable running more than 9 lands and nowhere near as many 1 drop allies. Type 2 stompy reached it's peak as angry hermit during the urzas destiny time period of magic wherein more than half the deck was either land or an elf that produced mana. All three had the same strategy of drop lots of dudes, slow the opponent down whether by wastelands or plowunders, and win the game by turns 4-6.

---

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:

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.

have you guys even actually played this game before?

What number of cards do you put in a deck to reliably get 1 or 2 early and 1 or 2 more later on? 8-12 is the answer. This is how many one drops you need in a rush deck, removal in a control deck, weapons in a solo deck. U/w control ran these numbers for their countermagic in type two while keeper ran these numbers for their countermagic in type one. Usually leaning to 8 to maximize deck space so when I say to him run 9 quests to get one in your opening draw more times than not, I know for a fact that that is a correct answer historically across at least two TCG games through multiple deck styles. So please, stop crying so much.

---

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:

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.

type one stompy was in the 9 land variety and used strip mines and wastelands. Legacy stompy, was different because there weren't as many combo decks and so a rush deck couldn't simply just go balls to the wall. It was more stable running more than 9 lands and nowhere near as many 1 drop allies. Type 2 stompy reached it's peak as angry hermit during the urzas destiny time period of magic wherein more than half the deck was either land or an elf that produced mana. All three had the same strategy of drop lots of dudes, slow the opponent down whether by wastelands or plowunders, and win the game by turns 4-6.

9 land stompy is a deck with gasp 9 lands. Decks with more lands such as angry hermit are in fact different decks and have nothing to do with it. I have no clue why you brough up angry hermit as that deck is nothing like 9 land stompy other than both being green.

I also have no clue why you keep talking about stripmines as there is no format where you can play more than one.

If nothing else that fact you brough it up as a deck that runs 9 lands where in fact it runs 13 lands should be a pretty big giveaway you have no clue what you are talking about.

---

Has made top8 of some events

1279444:

1576609:

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.

have you guys even actually played this game before?

What number of cards do you put in a deck to reliably get 1 or 2 early and 1 or 2 more later on? 8-12 is the answer. This is how many one drops you need in a rush deck, removal in a control deck, weapons in a solo deck. U/w control ran these numbers for their countermagic in type two while keeper ran these numbers for their countermagic in type one. Usually leaning to 8 to maximize deck space so when I say to him run 9 quests to get one in your opening draw more times than not, I know for a fact that that is a correct answer historically across at least two TCG games through multiple deck styles. So please, stop crying so much.

Half the people in this thread arguing with you have in fact done well at high level WoW events how about you?

Also you are not contradicting yourself you didn't want us just using 14-16 quests because other people have but now you are saying 8-12 is fine because decks in other games run those numbers?

---

Has made top8 of some events

The reason that brought up strip mine is that type 1 stompy used a combination of 1 strip mine and a few wastelands as land destruction. It did use land grants but it had to because half of it's lands didn't produce the green mana it needed to actually drop threats, hency why it's 9.

-------

There is also a big difference between run 14-16 quests because everyone else does compared to running 8 or so of a card has worked for others before. That is because telling him to simply run 14-16 of a specific without even knowing if the deck needs it is weird. Telling him that if he wants to draw a card consistently in the opening draw that running 8 is good enough is different because I would have given that same answer if we were talking any other card type. Say he wanted to do a ripped through the portal combo and wanted to know how many 9 drops he should run to consistently have 1 in his opening hand so he could discard it with quests, 8-9 would be a good bet. It's not a number tied down to a card type but a number ties down to historical consistency the same way we keep playing with 60 card decks and not with 100 card decks.

---

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, it seems to me that youre looking for the exact reasons people run x amount of quests, mathimatically speaking.

I cite an example. I ask David Beckham "How do you score from a free kick?"

Now, you could go into angles of trajectory, impact speed, wind direction, elevation angles, etc etc etc...but at the end of the day you just dont think about those things. He...just does it. Its a feel, a knack, an instinct. Sure, training and "playtesting" helps that, but since there are so many variables its practically impossible to do any math, and say "This is the way it should be". You may say x degrees, with x power = goal, but what if they have a man on the line? The theory wont work, and itll need adapting. What if there is no wall? Again, a change would be needed. Playtesting is the nearest we can get to drawing the most accurate conclusion, so its what we use. Either from our own personal playtests, or using the decklists, and therefore the playtests, of the professionals.

There are times ive ran 18 quests, to about turn 13, and not pulled one. Ive ran 6, and pulled 4 in the first 5 cards. Hell, even times when ive had to play an actual quest face down, as the situation dictated i needed that resource there and then.

So much of this game is luck based, you really cant set a mathmatical formula and say "that's that".

From all the playtesting done by all the players, people have taken that anywhere from 12-18 quests is right, and they just tailor that to their own need via small tweaks. Theres really no other reason for it than that. 

2512195:

Lorkac, it seems to me that youre looking for the exact reasons people run x amount of quests, mathimatically speaking.

I cite an example. I ask David Beckham "How do you score from a free kick?"

Now, you could go into angles of trajectory, impact speed, wind direction, elevation angles, etc etc etc...but at the end of the day you just dont think about those things. He...just does it. Its a feel, a knack, an instinct. Sure, training and "playtesting" helps that, but since there are so many variables its practically impossible to do any math, and say "This is the way it should be". You may say x degrees, with x power = goal, but what if they have a man on the line? The theory wont work, and itll need adapting. What if there is no wall? Again, a change would be needed. Playtesting is the nearest we can get to drawing the most accurate conclusion, so its what we use. Either from our own personal playtests, or using the decklists, and therefore the playtests, of the professionals.

There are times ive ran 18 quests, to about turn 13, and not pulled one. Ive ran 6, and pulled 4 in the first 5 cards. Hell, even times when ive had to play an actual quest face down, as the situation dictated i needed that resource there and then.

So much of this game is luck based, you really cant set a mathmatical formula and say "that's that".

From all the playtesting done by all the players, people have taken that anywhere from 12-18 quests is right, and they just tailor that to their own need via small tweaks. Theres really no other reason for it than that. 

I like your analogy.

It actually reminds me of this one friend of mine, great guy, I should call him sometime.  Anyway, he was the third guy of our team.  Owned us during all our playtesting.  His decks simply just would work better.

Then we'd go to the tourney, and despite running 18 quests he wouldn't draw a single one to save his life.  His control decks would crumple to lack of card draw, his rush decks would draw 3 of the 4 weapons it has and none of the 1 drops, I mean this man just sucked it hard if he went to a tournament.

Then we go back home to playtesting and the deck comes back to life and would own us again and again.  Good times.  Frustrated him to no end though.

Anyway, long story short, the limitations of probability is that it never matches up with reality.  Kind of like flipping a coin.  Sure its a 50/50 shot, but we all know from experience that flipping coins comes in clumps.  "Heads heads heads tails tails heads tails tails tails head head head etc..." and never the actual "head tails head tail head tails"

And so yes, as players of this game, we have to figure things out through "feeling" and "gut instinct"

However, I also know that Beckham's coach most likely doesn't design plays based on "let's just get Beckham close enough to feel his way into the net" and more like "During practice Beckham gets his best shots from here, and when he practices by himself he gets his best shots from there, so if I want them to perform play X I need to get Beckham to position Y to maximize my chances of scoring a goal.  I also know players A, B and C get tired after running for this length of time so I better give them a signal to change the play X to play W that way players A, B and C can walk it off while we play a more defensive game in position J, etc..."

To put it more bluntly, I do think that there is a pattern.  Not necessarily a formula for deckbuilding, but a playtesting pattern that produces the numbers I've been finding.  And while well laid plans never survive first contact with the enemy, to jump into the fray with no plan at all is suicide.  We all see it; sort of.  It's why it keeps popping up.  Probably in other aspects of deck mechanics, I've only really looked at card drawing, a little bit into deck thinning and starting to compile notes for card advantage+discard and how they affect game progression, but I'm sure there's more than that.  A kind of structure or backbone that this game is hinging on. 

In Magic the Gathering it was lands.  The innocous, almost annoying to deal with lands were also the most defining characterstic of a deck's ability to perform.  Whole strategies were based off of either A) cheating the land war through either land destruction or massive mana production, B.) Tempo control to simulate inability to properly use mana through countermagic or discard and C.) Streamlined decks that maximized mana usage through proper casting cost curves [this wasn't necessarily rush decks]

In WoW however, this isn't the case.  In WoW, resource management is about drawing enough cards so you'll always have a card to play and resource to put down.  It's one of the reasons I've leaned towards card draw as the basis of WoW's underlying structure.  But all it's given me is the knowledge that card draw simply relates to a deck's ability to play resources while casting spells.  There must be more to it than that.  Something that playtesting winning decklists does not give me. 

---

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

I see what youre trying to say, but i think it's fruitless to try to find the answer you desire. Beckham could practise all he likes, from all angles, under all conditions. Then, he just purely screws up the kick, it hits a defender and ricochets in at a right angle into the other corner. Some things you just cant plan for.

If the WoW TCG was pure skill, then maybe yes, you could almost conjure a perfect equation. But the underlying element of luck means, as you have witnessed, that you can run 18 quests, and pull none, or run 4, and pull them all. And even then if youre playing someone with quest denial (skumm, towers, etc) then the quests you had may not even come to fruition.

All we can do is try to minimise the impact luck has. We've all topdecked that one card that saved our bacon, and we've all dug for answers and found nothing. I just dont feel its worth the time and effort to try to get the perfect questing equation, rather try to get answers for when things just dont fall for you.

i'd hate this game alot if running 8 quest was okay.... i run 12-14 and still get frustrated that i have to row something (well, depends on the deck, some decks u can just row dead cards, other decks its like your whole deck is an engine and u really dont wanna row a card thats vital)

honestly.. im starting to think 14 quest is a good MINIMUM to play...

Wow, now he's got TWO completely separate arguments going at once. I'm beginning to think Lorkac doesn't care what he or others say, he just loves arguing against as many people as possible...

---

At least we FINALLY figured out where he pulled the 8/9 from.
I can actually appreciate the idea that 8-10 is often the amount of 1-drops a rush deck runs. If only he had said that at the start instead of trying to justify it with mathfailmatics and walls of text.
The fact remains that he ignored the required 85% the OP asked for.

---

Props to darknesspwns for the sig

Regular events at Arcade Games Adelaide - PM me

1381330:

At least we FINALLY figured out where he pulled the 8/9 from. I can actually appreciate the idea that 8-10 is often the amount of 1-drops a rush deck runs. If only he had said that at the start instead of trying to justify it with mathfailmatics and walls of text. The fact remains that he ignored the required 85% the OP asked for.

It's a mathematically derived number supported by years and years of historical consistency for quests and non-quests alike.  The 85% was not required, he asked that "if it was" that we could use it, but we don't have to.  If you think its absolutely essential to the point of getting upset, then I'm sorry.  Didn't mean to piss you or anyone else off; but if someone tells me *if* I don't take it as legally binding.  Nor do I take someone's *if* statement, and make it the basis for my arguments.

---------------------------------------------

As for the guy commenting on my liking to discuss topics on a discussion board, well yeah.  That's kind of the point of a discussion board.  Unless you use this place as a mode social interaction with the outside world, which I guess is better than playing an MMO, but not by much.  You see, Pubs are for drinking, Malls are for shopping, Beds are for sleeping and discussion forms are for (egad!) discussing.

We could use the Socratic method of discourse if you want and simply ask each other questions.  For example, instead of explaining myself in the first paragraph on this specific post, which I'll quote for clarity.

"It's a mathematically derived number supported by years and years of historical consistency.  The 85% was not required, he asked that if it was we could use it but we don't have to. "

I could use the Socratic method and not even make an argument.  I would just ask him...

"And why do you think that the methodology I used is more consistent and widespread amongst non-quest numbers than yours is?"

But that would sound tacky and condescending.  I could choose to ignore it, but that would be like being a barfly who only orders a coke; if you join a discussion forum it's probably because you enjoy discussing things, which I do.  So I couldn't do that.  I could be passive aggressive/trollish/crass/etc... but that would not be productive.

What is productive is discussion.  There is a reason that France invented the teaching style of "The Devils Advocate," and that is because it reminds people why they believe the things that they believe.  It also allows people to finally look at things from other perspectives.  It makes both sides think about things they don't normally think about.  For example, I didn't know how precise people wanted to be on exactly how many quests they get each turn.  People who played Magic were never this rabid about the lands they drew.  They kind of just threw more in if they didn't draw enough because they didn't have a choice.  Here in this forum, they get upset if someone suggests that "more times than not" is good enough to draw a card.

---

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

Yep, I was right...

---

Lorkac,  the simple fact that you try and find patterns in random probability (your coin flipping example) shows that you know nothing about probability.  If I flip a fair coin 1,000 times and it comes up heads 1,000 times in a row, the odds of getting heads on the next flip are still 1/2 - what happened in the past is irrelevant for the next flip.

As others have said, the 85% number the OP gave is completely necessary as it is impossible to accurately answer the question mathematically without it.  In order to solve an equation for one variable (in this case number of quests) you must have a known value for all other variables in the equation - the chance of drawing one in your openin hand being one of these variables.  Otherwise, the mathematical answer (which the OP was looking for, based upon both the wording of his question and the title of the thread) would have to be expressed in terms of an unknown value for the chance of drawing a card.  Since the value is necessary, we used the value the OP provided us with if we needed it (and, again, we absolutely do).

Also, you fail to recognize this, but your original logic is flawed.  If you're drawing 1/7 of your deck in your opening hand, then having 1/7 of your deck be quests would give the simple result that you're looking for, but you're not drawing 1/7 of your deck.  You're actually drawing 7/60 of your deck in your opening hand, or 11.67%.  Assuming an average normal distribution, if you have 7 quests in your deck you can expect on average to have 1 in your opening hand - this means that you will have 1 as often as you will not, giving you a 50/50 chance to have a quest in your hand.  Since your 8.5 is greater than 7 you will have a quest more often than not, which nobody is arguing, but not 85% of the time...