|
5 months ago ::
Dec 26, 2012 - 1:34PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
May 20, 2012
|
I've been thinking a lot recently about the benefits and drawbacks of making decks greater than 60 cards. I've seen it done before, such as in the case of rebel decks (which can easily go up to 100 cards and still be amazing given the number of 'search for rebel' cards available), but no very often. I just want your opinions on when it's definitely worth it to go over 60 cards and what should be done in regards to land, mana curves, balancing out these large decks, and the like.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 26, 2012 - 1:39PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jan 30, 2012
|
The only time 60+ decks are a good idea is if you want to try and win with Battle of Wits  . Beyond that, the math is just working against you.
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in an thread with GM_Champion" - but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never go in against AzureShade when card design is on the line!
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 26, 2012 - 1:56PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
May 20, 2012
|
It's working against you in that you don't draw your win condition as often, yes. But what if you have an extremely large number of possible win conditions? Or, what if you can just stall indefinitely until you do draw one of your win conditions?
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 26, 2012 - 2:11PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
May 26, 2007
|
Okay you're running 8 different win-combos, you draw pieces from combo 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 7, 3.
Alternatively, you draw pieces from combo 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 26, 2012 - 2:13PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Jul 18, 2012
|
what if you have an extremely large number of possible win conditions?
Then your deck is suffering from an identity crisis and needs to see a therapist.
what if you can just stall indefinitely until you do draw one of your win conditions?
You can do that in a sixty-card deck. It's called Turbo-Fog.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 26, 2012 - 2:59PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Feb 28, 2011
|
tbh in most decks it doesnt matter much. As long as you're simply merely playing a mix of spells and you dont need 1 particular card like in combo the only thing you're missing out on is efficiency. But with a very general tactic like agro-control there's often several options of comparable power you forego. lets say you have a card of 95% the same power as a card you put in your 60 card deck (or rather the average power of those cards), the loss in efficiency is 1/60 or 1,67% that you will draw that card (im assuming you either change your manabase to keep the mana-card ratio neutral or that the benefits of adding a his card exactly equals the disadvantages also in other considerations) and the 5% loss in efficiency - total 0,083%.
Technically your deck is weaker, practically you will lose because of this change once every 120482 games.
(actually this math is pretty bogus as it doesnt factor in the average number of draws in a game or tries to compute the effect of drawing a suboptimal card which is probably greater than merely comparing card 1:1 - it does however give a pretty good idea of how neglible the effect is)
naturally if the difference in efficiency between the addition and the 60 card deck is higher, or the addition disturbs some form of balance negatively, the change will be more detectable, but the reverse is also true that if you add cards of exactly the same quality as the cards you would choose for a 60 card version and manage to keep the tuning on all balances (removal/control, threats, boosts, draw/whatever) youtr deck will be exactly as good in a 60 card version as a 120 card version.
that said you should always strive for 60 card perfection, not only will there be almost always be cards that you want to draw more than others, but limiting yourself also forces a certain rigor on you that keeps you from adding cards that mihgt be good if this or this was the boardsituation etc etc.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 26, 2012 - 7:14PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Sep 16, 2009
|
Some decks can do alright just from having a greater number of cards. For example, Battle of Wits obviously needs more than 60 cards to function, and I once played a fellow who played a deck with some Mesmeric Orb  s and other mill-both, with the deck being over 100 cards and there being a lot of graveyard-interactive cards, like flashback stuff and Living Death  . Usually though, you don't want many more than 60. I think the highest most pros go to is about 67, and there's usually a decent reason if they go over 60. I'll often build to 61/62 myself, as you can more finely tune the land:nonland ratio if you're willing to go up an extra card or two. But you don't want to go significantly over 60 without a reason for doing so, as you're just reducing your chances of drawing the better cards in your deck. Easy way to demonstrate: You have a 60 card deck, including 4 Mother of Runes  . You throw in 4 Elite Vanguard  , going up to 64 cards. Hey presto, you immediately have less chance of drawing the Mothers, even though they're likely the card you want to see more often.
|
|
|
