Bash Bests - Free Cards, Free Wins

    • New

      JeffHoogland wrote:

      Every deck gets the same amount of consistency - that is how math works and why trimming a percentage of the resource light hands is genius. This isn't some lazy system like Eternal uses where you automatically get X resources in your opener. You play less resources you still see more resource light hands than someone who isn't.
      every deck does not get the same amount of consistency

      the algoirthm is biased towards providing more-than-average shard quantities, so it disproportionately favors decks that gamble with lower shard counts

      it's not like they made the anti-flood and anti-screw protections symmetrical. it's deliberately lopsided, and this type of shard base is the exploitation of that


      i don't know if this is the deck to play or not. but if it is, there would be mirror matches. and a mirror between these shard bases is craptastic
    • New

      Then why have decks like BW and other 25 resource decks been doing in the past few Bashes against say other low resource decks such as mR? Because their resource system was low? No it has absolutely nothing to do with that.

      I feel like whenever a deck becomes popularized in some sort of fashion you blame it on some flaw of the designers of Hex rather than saying or thinking "What can I do to beat this deck." I feel like this is a standard among players who call themselves "casually competitive". These players want to play the deck they want and get upset when it loses to decks that are just flat out better.
    • New

      Biz wrote:

      the algoirthm is biased towards providing more-than-average shard quantities
      This is correct.

      This conclusion however:

      Biz wrote:

      so it disproportionately favors decks that gamble with lower shard counts
      Is just wrong. I'm obviously not going to change your mind, but I'll just mention one more time for anyone else reading this thread that is inclined to believe this incorrect statement - go check how many resources people were playing post algorithm change, before the ice. If anything we played more resources during this time because coins rewarded us for doing so.

      Fateweave and Ice shards have made it possible to go to such a low resource count. It has nothing to do with the opening handle algorithm and this deck would be built the same even if it didn't exist - it would just mulligan more just like every single deck in Hex would.
    • New

      Piecetinker wrote:

      Then why have decks like BW and other 25 resource decks been doing in the past few Bashes against say other low resource decks such as mR? Because their resource system was low? No it has absolutely nothing to do with that.

      I feel like whenever a deck becomes popularized in some sort of fashion you blame it on some flaw of the designers of Hex rather than saying or thinking "What can I do to beat this deck." I feel like this is a standard among players who call themselves "casually competitive". These players want to play the deck they want and get upset when it loses to decks that are just flat out better.
      mono ruby isn't really a low resource deck. all the combinations of resource draws are fine in monocolor. getting thresholds is an important part of playing resources

      anyways i'm done with this thread because there's no real discussion with people who don't understand discrete math. the benefits of shifting the distribution towards flooding rather than screwing are not identical across all decks just because someone wants to believe it is

      you think you're all clever with your snide straw-man categorizations, but this scenario is exactly what was described when they made the shuffler change. i objected to the asymmetrical protections long before people actually "discovered" these lists.

      if these types of shard bases end up performing "flat out better", the gameplay is flat out worse

      seeing which low-shard player manages to draw thresholds is not what i would consider an enjoyable competitive environment. you're welcome to disagree with the conclusion (i'm sure lesser strategy players might even enjoy the rng shitfest), but the mathematical probabilities aren't questionable
    • New

      Biz wrote:

      mono ruby isn't really a low resource deck. all the combinations of resource draws are fine in monocolor. getting thresholds is an important part of playing resources
      anyways i'm done with this thread because there's no real discussion with people who don't understand discrete math. the benefits of shifting the distribution towards flooding rather than screwing are not identical across all decks just because someone wants to believe it is

      you think you're all clever with your snide straw-man categorizations, but this scenario is exactly what was described when they made the shuffler change. i objected to the asymmetrical protections long before people actually "discovered" these lists.

      if these types of shard bases end up performing "flat out better", the gameplay is flat out worse

      seeing which low-shard player manages to draw thresholds is not what i would consider an enjoyable competitive environment. you're welcome to disagree with the conclusion (i'm sure lesser strategy players might even enjoy the rng shitfest), but the mathematical probabilities aren't questionable
      Decks with between 18 and 27 shards perform "flat out better" that decks with 10 or fewer shards and decks with 40 or more shards. Does that mean that gameplay is worse?

      Obviously, the change in starting hand distribution does not exactly affect every single deck in the same way, but why is having a perfectly unaltered distribution somehow inherently better than an altered distribution? Some hands are 'stealth-mulliganed' under the current algorithm that a deck would be able to keep and as this happens more for some decks than others, some decks are disproportionately benefited. Additionally, all deck having to mulligan on average one fewer time every 7 or so games disproportionately benefits decks that are poorer at mulliganing. However, the algorithm does not directly benefit low-shard counts purely as a consequence of those decks having a low number of shards. Low shard count decks are benefited just like every other deck in that they mulligan 15% less (with the exception I mentioned earlier in the paragraph).

      What makes the 18 shard count work is not the algorithm (which helps all decks), but Fateweave. As I mentioned earlier in the thread: A hand with just a diamond shard, guidance, and 5 other cards that do not fix thresholds guarantees you either double sapphire threshold by turn 3 or a Diamond Ice every turn until turn 5 when you'd be guaranteed your second sapphire. You seem to think that hitting your thresholds in this deck is very inconsistent, but it's not.

      If the thresholds were actually a problem for the deck, up to 4 of the Sapphire Shards could be replaced by Shards of Purpose to raise the diamond threshold source count from 8 to 12. Your hypothetical "seeing which low-shard player manages to draw thresholds" is incredibly hyperbolic and not grounded in reality.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Steric ().

    • New

      It is beyond amusing to hear someone refer to what might be the lowest variance deck I've ever played in Hex as a:


      Biz wrote:

      rng shitfest)
      I get it Biz. You want to feel smart. By saying this deck is all RNG your ego isn't hurt by losing to it - if it is all RNG it isn't your fault for losing. You weren't out played, the other person is just luckier. It is a classic TCG cop out. You can always find a reason why losing a given match of a TCG wasn't your fault. There is always something else to blame.

      We follow it up with another classic TCG player cop out:

      Biz wrote:

      anyways i'm done with this thread because there's no real discussion with people who don't understand discrete math. the benefits of shifting the distribution towards flooding rather than screwing are not identical across all decks just because someone wants to believe it is
      The old "you all are too stupid to understand what I am trying to say, so I am going to just say nothing". I have two degrees in mathematics and a firm grasp on discrete math and probability.

      Every deck gets the same amount of "free mulligans" from the change. All of them gain the same benefit. The opening hand algorithm has nothing to do with why this deck plays 18 resources. It would play 18 resources without said algorithm change. Fateweave, explicitly the very powerful Ice Resources, are the reason this resource base is consistent and competitive. A point you keep ignoring while sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling about the opening hand algorithm change being bad.
    • New

      I don't like the deck, not saying it's unfair or stupid or whatever, I just would'nt want to play it myself.

      But after watching the bash on stream today, I find it super impressive and it will likely get played a lot more from now on...If I'm going to face it often, any advice on how to fight back ?

      Edit : I play mostly b/s control, reanimator, and w/r stompy.
      Awaiting the Doomwalker's arrival in Entrath since the Beta.

      " Honey, where's my chaos key ?
      - Have you searched in your chaos coat ?
      - Shoot I left it in the chaos car... "

      ... Still be waiting for a while it seems ...
    • New

      Having played with and against this deck, I would say is very powerful, but far from unbeatable.

      It depends on a specific card to win, and most importantly, in a good pilot behind the deck (I'm not pretending to be one). Play your resource bad, take bad decisions when using the focus or the cosmic calling, or even the starting hand keep, and you'll be running out of gas and left in the dark.

      Also, since this deck is very light on removal, hate cards like wise magistrate, tribunal or inquisitor of lumos have higher chances of sticking to the board and do their job.

      Yes, it can generate a lot of 1/1, but there are several sideboard cards that can wreck that board easily.

      People usually see a strong deck and start to fear. At least with this one, I feel that the current meta have more than reasonable answers to it.
      Twitter: @Plotynus

      ZonaHex.com - Un sitio en español sobre Hex! / A spanish site about Hex.
    • New

      Seems like if you can prevent them from getting their Shaper out or kill it once it is out... you're probably okay too. Although I guess with a bunch of 0-cost saves, it might be tough to deal with it after its out.
      Gamer. Streamer. Photographer. Writer. Anime Lover. Possessor of Stuffed Animals.

      Also... I'm terrible at this game.