a better way of grading decks

[werewolfjedi]

I was looking at how we want the score to come out in a single number, and I noticed log mathematics. the way this would work would be:

 

common log (the total number of +++ your deck gives.)

divided by common log( the total number of --- your deck gives.)

 

the + stuff is hand and field advantage, plus avg. lp gain in multiples of 1000. field clear cards should be +3 for monsters, and +3 for spells and traps.

 

negatives are costs to play cards. treat "pay half your life points." as a -3, because it is a high cost early game, but is always available late game. lp costs are still in 1000's. this does get into decimals.

 

do this to the tier one decks, I want to know what they get to use as a base.

 

DO NOT PREEMPTIVELY SUBTRACT. it screws up the math.

if you have a graphing calculator, just plug this in and get your rating.

I think this might also work on individual cards as well, just much smaller numbers (I think.)

 

this is a basic version that should work, but if you need to be even more precise, there is a longer way (you can stop reading now if you aren't in pre-cal or higher.)

 

 

it entails doing each card separately and then taking the total of it all as the deck score. but it needs to account for cards that need to be combo-ed to work at their best. these cards need to be done as pairs/ groups for best effect. if you know about log's, any help would be welcomed

 

this should work with a small amount of refining to the system, but overall I think log's are the answer to the problem we have right now with the current system.

 

if this doesn't work, well then I'm out of ideas.

[Guest]

This system is so bad that it's not even funny. Randomly throwing in stuff about logs doesn't help anything. Your expectations are entirely unrealistic, such as decreeing the destruction of either half of an opponent's field to be a +3; as broken as Judgment Dragoon is, it isn't an instant +6 in most cases. Meanwhile, you're calling Solemn Judgment a -3, which is just retarded. You don't even understand how logarithms work, as evidenced by your insistence that both logs involved be common logs; it wouldn't make any difference if they were instead both natural logs, base two logs, or base pi logs.

 

All you're doing is scooping up Nate's idiotic idea and randomly putting logarithms in it for no logical reason while making ridiculous assumptions that anything of variable advantage counts automatically as a +3, again for no logical reason and in fact in defiance of how the game actually works.

[tonisanoob]

---^pwnd

[Guest PikaPerson01]

tl;dr

 

Summarize it in one word.

[Guest]

tl;dr

 

Summarize it in one word.

 

I think "Failure" would be an apt summary?

[werewolfjedi]

sorry, just thinking a bit, it seemed possible with some work, that it should be possible to use it with reliable results.

 

I didn't think the numbers I put were right to honest, but I felt that people would attack me not putting in any numbers at all more than having wrong ones.

 

like I said, if you know more, HELP. if it doesn't work, oh well. at least I tried.

sorry for wasting your time.

[Guest]

The problem with this is exactly the same as the problem with Nate's system: ranking decks based on doing some math on the advantage generated by each individual card is a fundamentally flawed system and will never be effective. Asking us to help you fix this system is like asking us to help you create a top-tier Toon/Aitsu hybrid deck.

[werewolfjedi]

The problem with this is exactly the same as the problem with Nate's system: ranking decks based on doing some math on the advantage generated by each individual card is a fundamentally flawed system and will never be effective. Asking us to help you fix this system is like asking us to help you create a top-tier Toon/Aitsu hybrid deck.

 

that does sound hard.

 

delete thread please with this as my final word on deckmaking:

 

the only way you know a deck is good is when you play with it and against it and it works both times.