it’s hard to fit in both with the non-Desperado build, but i’m going to try to go back and see if it’ll work again with 1-2x Scrubber and HM. from a few matches, I felt like even with Scrubber and Desperado to make trashing Sundews/MHCs cheap, you eat up so many clicks to trash them that should be spent on setup/draw, especially if the corp is smart and spams them behind cheap ICE (pup/cortex/crick). without a way to punish that, the corp can slowly setup as they draw operation econ and eventually open up a window.
If rook allows you to crush your opponents and some other card in the deck makes it barely possible to win; sounds like good card is being ignored?
1 Like
I think @Calimsha’s point was that it doesn’t matter if you’re crushing or just sneaking across the finish line, and I inferred that he felt that the deck manages to get across the finish line in all games where Rook would make it a route, even if the fight was closer.
2 Likes
Rook: worth trying, issue is card slots, I have one slot that jumps between yog, second david and sym visage, it might work in there.
Deep red: no, we already have too many good console options. Even grimoire helps in the BS matchup. Data folding + career fair might be cute, but I’d rather be able to blank a cortex lock right now, since that seems to be played a lot.
there’s a lot of options for the last couple card slots in the deck. anarch has a lot of in faction tools (ice carver isn’t bad, 1 VBG or sucker might help a lot against certain decks, etc.).
I’m not sure Reina would be running more than 2 times average a turn to justify Desperado over spinal modem.
Run 4 time on HQ with lamprey when the corp can’t rez => 8 creds swing.
That happen A LOT.
3 Likes
Desperado paying you when the corporation has no ice or when you run naked remotes seems like an important point…
1 Like
The point, and entire strength, of the deck is to spend as little money breaking ice as possible, usually by shutting it down the only time you break it, or parasiting it. Desperado doesn’t require an ice breaker, and a lot of turns it can get you 3-4 dollars, because running is cheap when the corp has next to no ice. In a couple of my wins spinal modem would not have triggered more than once, but I got 8+ credits off desperado. Spinal modem is good in decks like regmax, where you plan to break ice, this deck removes ice instead.
3 Likes
Just got out of 2 games with deep red, pawn, rook and knight. Lost 1 won 1, barely.
The good: knight deploying from clone chip and off pawn for an ambush is awesome.
I did cut ErH for inject and the pawns (2 inject 2 IHW), and the draw came vastly out of order (all pawns first, no eater almost ever), and it was rough. So, earthrise hotel, pretty much 100% include. I tried playing IHW when I wanted programs and inject when I needed not programs, and it worked okay, but everything was moving in slow motion.
Econ was fairly stable w/o daily casts, but slightly click intensive. I wonder if going down in liberated and adding DC back in is the answer.
Pawn is actually pretty good, especially when you get the corp to commit and ice to archives due to keyhole, that worked out for 1 of my games, and was quite nice.
Lots of knights really hoses shallow rushing.
The bad:
So far is that rook has, as usual been clunky and a bit to slow to use. Both were fairly rushy HB decks it didn’t have a significant impact when it was on the field, other than it caused the corp to trash the ice. I can’t really imagine paying 2 and 2 clicks for it though, but maybe as a 1 of when you have the lock on.
Vigil was sorely missed.
1 Vamp wasn’t enough, even with 1 Deja
1 scrubber wasn’t enough without earthrise drawing into it.
Small sample size, but having played the original I feel like I’m in tune with the tweaks.
Don’t play deep red.
1 Like
Because the deck is never shuffled after an Inject, this is not true so long as there is never a desire to draw cards beyond the size of the deck. Your example with Maxx is a situtation of filtered draw (not drawing after a filter effect) so it is not analogous. If you try to simulate this effect in a script, you will very rapidly realise while writing that script why Inject will never negatively impact your capacity to draw programs, assuming that the information that you cannot (or are less likely to) draw specific cards impacts the decision to draw cards during the game (I’ll get to this idea later).
To elaborate, once you’ve chosen to keep or mulligan, the order of your deck is fixed. You can imagine the number of cards you draw during the game to be a window over the deck equal in size to the total number of cards drawn during the game. The probability of each individual Lamprey, Clone Chip and Crescentus being within that window is only dependent on the window’s size relative to the deck. It doesn’t matter if the window is a continuous block or not, the probability does not change according to the structure of the window.
Imagine for a second that after we shuffled and kept our hands and instead of drawing cards from the top of the deck, I decide to roll a die to choose one at random from anywhere in the deck. If you know I’m not doing any card manipulation, it should be easy to understand that this process does nothing to impact the probability that I draw specific cards. In the same way, if I were to draw cards off the top of my deck, and have those draws punctured by Inject, the probability that I draw specific cards does not change so long as the number of cards drawn does not change.
With that said, Inject does give information so you get a situation that has some similarities with the Monty Hall problem (Oh man, am I stepping into a minefield here). A question arises that if you know that your deck is more or less likely to produce a specific card when you draw, are your draw decision impacted. Granted that Inject can make the situation go either way with equal likelihood, by the decision to draw may not be linearly dependent on knowledge of that bias in the deck. The number of draw actions you take could decrease substantially more if you mill certain cards than it would increase if you did not mill them. However, because nobody has ever measured this effect, I wouldn’t be inclined to consider it neutral for the purposes of deck construction. This may not be the case though.
If you had to choose between Inject and Steelskin (Guys, what happened?) and you care a lot on whether you draw certain programs (e.g. Lamprey and Crescentus), then you’re probably better off going with Steelskin since it can draw those programs. However, adding Inject on top of Steelskin is likely to increase those chances since it’s possible to Inject into Steelskin which would increase the number of cards drawn during the game.
3 Likes
The position of the card is actually determined by a 45 sided dice roll, a 44 sided dice roll, and a 43 sided dice roll. Furthermore, the distribution of the cards in the deck is uniform, not gaussian. Since this is apparently not self-evident, here is a simple proof:
First, note that multiple cards cannot occupy the same numbered position in a deck (i.e. two cards cannot both be the 30th card). Thus, when randomly distributing 3 cards among the 45 possible positions in a 45 card deck, we roll a 45 sided die to pick the first card’s position, remove that position from the pool of available places for the remaining two cards, renumber them, and roll a 44 sided die to place the second card. Repeat with a 43 sided die for the 3rd card.
Now, to prove that the distribution of 3 identical cards over a 45 card deck is uniform, it suffices to show that the probability of seeing a copy of the card in any given position is 3/45. Pick a position X at random. We will sum the probabilities of any of the three copies of the card appearing in the position.
The first card is easy: because we rolled a 45 sided die to place it, the chance it appears in the chosen position is 1/45.
The second card is a bit harder, but not too bad if we remember the method we used to place these cards in the deck: X is only available to place the 2nd copy if the first copy was placed elsewhere, and we rolled a 44 sided die to place the second copy, so the probability the 2nd copy is at X is 44/45 * 1/44 = 1/45.
We can use similar reasoning for the third copy, and get 44/45 * 43/44 * 1/43 = 1/45.
Thus, the probability of the card appearing at any given location is 3/45, and the distribution of the cards in the deck must be uniform.
2 Likes
you can skip card drawing math by using this for probabilities http://deckulator.appspot.com/ otherwise drawing without replacement is a royal pain in the ass.
Understanding the combinatorial reason the numbers are what they are is very helpful in my experience to avoid saying silly things about probabilities, but you’re right, in practice using a hypergeometric calculator is just better.
edit: To be constructive, I prefer IHW quite a bit in this deck. In my experience, the best cards you can draw are going to be programs of some sort or another the majority of the time, so running cards that specifically cannot grab you a program is a waste of space IMO. The normal benefit Inject usually provides of powering up clone chip and deja vu is irrelevant here because there are only a handful of programs in our deck that stick around anyways, so the heap tends to be fully stocked without any additional help more often than not.
Come on, I know each position have a 1/15 distrib. I was talking about the position of the first card with odd to draw rise long before the middle of the deck.
So you remove 5 top cards then start to draw. Odd to find a card in x3 start at 3/40 then 3/40+(3/39)*(37/40) then…
You have 54.5% of drawing that first card, if you couldn’t find it at mulligan (you are seeking a card), after the 9th draw. (+/- 49.8% at 8th draw).
So if you draw five times before Injecting, you’ve got 54.5% of milling that card…
So if you milled it, you will have 2/30 odds to find the second, rigth ? That starts @ 6.6%. GLHF with that (in my opinion).
You had 33.8% chance to draw it rigth before the Inject after 5th draw, then 6.6% more than half of times.
It seems to not have the properties all of bottom decking analysts sing around.
@Calimsha welp
-edit- true #
It does have those “bottom deck” properties to find a singleton program though because it helps progressing toward end deck. But not for triplets.
For hardware / event / ressource, I would sing with you guys, maybe (I’d have to check) for 1x programs. Not for x3 programs.
-edit 2 - addon : if you play Inject @0draw, you would have 27.7% of milling a needed 3x program. Then odds to find it back goes down to 5.7%.
I’m just gonna say that If you trash a program you want with inject, except if your deck is below 12 cards, you just decrease the probability to draw this program afterwards since the amount of copy left in your deck diminished by one.
Considering a key program like crescentus or parasite in the heap as the same as being on the board because you play clone chip/déjà vu is a terrible argument and somehow prove that you haven’t played this deck enough.
Ive tried this sort of deck, along time ago with the cassia stuff, it actually worked quite good, tier 1.5ish.
Blue sun pretty much killed it as knight became much less reliable, but since eater has come out, i havent refreshed that deck.
That said i think cassia still take to many clicks to be vialble even with deep red you always feel like you dont have enough.
24.9% chance of pitching a crescentus on turn 1
2.625% chance of pitching two on turn 1
45% chance of seeing either crescentus or clone chip. Which isn’t bad since one begets the other, though it is a usage and ultimately means -1 if its not a clone chip. There’s similarly a 24.9% chance that it’s a clone chip.
Here’s the problem Say you haven’t draw crescentus, but you’ve draw clone chip. Every card you draw that is not a crescentus makes your inject worse. Because now you’re dealing with a smaller deck with a higher density of the card you’re looking for, and the card you’re using will throw that card away if it finds it.
As to any 4 cards being as likely to be in the bottom 4 as anywhere else, this is wrong. there are 39! x 6! arrangements where the last 6 cards are clone chips and crescentus. There are 45!-(39!x6!) arrangements (1.19622e^56) where those 6 cards are not on the bottom of the deck. Which is simply to say that you are likely to have an arrangement where indexing will see one of your cards; percentages above.
Really, if you have 3 crescentus in your deck (presuming you haven’t drawn one), Then over the course of playing inject, you have a 62.5% chance of hitting 1 crescentus, a 17.6% chance of hitting 2, and a 1.7% of hitting 3 with inject. So, a 78% chance of losing a crescentus. and a 20% chance of losing at least 2. If you like those odds and only need 4-5 crescentus in a game, feel free to play inject and swallow the 1.7%.
This is if you only use inject to draw your first 12 cards and never draw a card that manually that is not crescentus. Every card you draw that is not a crescentus makes this math worse for you.
The probability is that a card is as likely to be in any single slot as any other; HOWEVER when there are 45 slots, it’s far more likely that your card will be in a set of 44 taken from that 45 than in the set of 1 taken from that 45, no matter where that 1 is. You can’t actually say that a card is equally likely to be on the bottom as it is to not be on the bottom.
2 Likes
Yes. This is wrong. The statement I was arguing is that the cards are as likely to be on the bottom 4 as they are to be in the top 4 when you play inject. Or the bottom 12 as the 12 cards that you draw from playing the 3 injects.
Correct, you can say that it’s equally likely to be on the bottom as it is to be on the top (at a particular instance in the game).
Inject over no draw acceleration is, to me, a no brainer. Inject over IHW is more difficult to justify and is closer. In my opening hand, I’d prefer to see Inject. There are some non-program cards (sustainable econ and console) that this deck fails without. How soon after my opening hand I’d prefer to see IHW might mean that IHW is a superior choice for this deck. It’s pretty close though, especially seeing as the likelihood you’ll take damage playing this deck is pretty low.
It’s pretty rare that you draw an inject in this deck and it is wrong to play it.
1 Like
If pitching a crescentus is bad play then its wrong 25% of the time at the beginning of the game with an increase towards 70% (end game) as the game continues.
I love inject. Just not in decks where I need every instance of a program
I’m going to not talk about inject any more. We’re going round in circles.
You can’t decide what is and isn’t a good play based on what happens as a result. You can only determine whether or not it’s a good play based on the likelihood of something good happening with the information you had when you made the decision. I’m going to try IHW and see if I find it better. It might be close enough an effect that the extra cost is worth bearing.
4 Likes