Agh I split the topic but then moved some additional posts over here too that had been made earlier and it looks like there was some duplication(?). Sorry if stuff is out of order. I trust yall are big girls and boys and can figure it out.
8 Likes
ive done it correcty before ._.
6 Likes
A post so condescending and inflammatory we need to read it twice!
7 Likes
You should really try to read what I wrote about your deck.
For exemple, could you care to explain why LF if you play no SoT, no Levy. It’s not the best inf you could spend in $$ there. You could have put Kati and use that inf elsewhere, wherever you want.
Inf in my 77 card MaxX is 3 FF, 2 Clone Chip, 3 Scavenge, 1 Utopia, 1 Hades.
Lucky find is just as bad to recur as anything else youd play in the slot, and imo its the best card. Other things are fine, I like more money. High level play is often an econ war followed by someone having to get aggressive because theyre losing the econ war. Lucky is the best econ card.
I agree when you play Levy, when you don’t I think it’s another story.
2 LF in this means 50% + Injects + Starting hand. This is quite difficult to find.
For exemple, you and him put Zu, it’s ok because there’s tutors to profit of your inf.
After turn 18, this deck is always dead. There should just have something to survive instead on relying on credit clic at least somewhere in this deck. Katie is maybe not a perfect source of income, but she have the effect to be perfect for remote locking.
I mean I’m sure Katie gives more than 12 cred a game. So in terms of eco wars, she’s fine. Her main problem is tempo and nothing else (12c: instal+5 clic instead of 4 with luck to find both). This is more stable, I think. It’s locking remotes quicker than LFs in those decks because usually the pilot don’t draw much. It’s +1 card in grip and if this is a double, it will mean run in 3 or 4.
I’d cut 1 QG, those 2 LF for Katies, and would try to do something better with that inf. For exemple a third Zu instead of Yog, maybe better Killers, or Bank Jobs instead of QG, etc, etc.
Anyone got a translation?
2 Likes
@BJester If you’ve ever played a tower-no levy Maxx, you can translate by your own. 
- Those decks don’t draw. Never.
- There’s no levy / no sot / no whatever to find a trashed LF from heap in @edmund_blake_nelson’s list
=> So, you’re relying upon passive drawing odds of those LF.
In that case, base % of drawing 1x or 2xLF from a slot of two is 50% + % from inject drawing those LF + % from finding LF in starting hand.
You’re @ 70% top I’d say.
So, you spent 4 inf to have 70% of +6c or +12c only once.
In a 45-Levy list, you spent 4 inf to find +6c, +12c twice, at more % because you draw.
% to get 2xLF is much lower (around 20% I’d say). 4 inf for +12c @20% and +6c @50% (20+50=70%).
4 inf for strictly nothing in 30% of cases.
4 inf for 30% of wtf is too expensive in my opinion.
Exact % is easy to find, if you want it, I can provide. Maybe it’s 20% of wtf. Maybe 40% of wtf. Whatever, it’s still wtf.
If you also have trouble finding this, I can explain how to, it’s a really simple math pb. Stats of those decks are really easier that Levy one.
===>
In this deck, you will see in grip 5 starting hand card + 19 cards (33% of remaining card).
Then go to http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/hypergeometric.aspx
If you don’t retain inject @ mulligan,
Odds to find :
- 0 inject = 28%
- 1 inject = 45%
- 2 injects = 22%
- 3 injects = 3%
So you saw
5 (starting hand) + 0.2819 + 0.45(19+4) + 0.22*(19+4+4) + 0.03*(19+4+4+4) cards = 27.54 if i’m rigth.
Then go back to http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/hypergeometric.aspx
- 0 LF = 30% => no recursion mean 30% of games
- 1 LF = 50%
- 2 LF = 20%
Conclusion : 4 inf 30% of wtf games. I would not buy this.
Stop. Please.
4 Likes
I think your argument is that if you spend your influence on powerful programs, they can be recurred so you should play them most games.
If you spend your influence on powerful cards that can’t be recurred, you won’t draw them every game due to milling, and so your deck will have higher variance in power level from game to game. So switch to non-influence econ, and better programs.
Which makes some sense, but, the Anarch programs are very good already. And I don’t get why you suggested adding Bank Job?
@Thesper This is exactly it. Kati is cited because this particular deck “meet an end” unlike any other runner deck.
Stack is over, 5 cards in hand, will you play your last events or clic credit vs Jinteki / Weyland / NBN T&B ? You’d be happy to have something to clic credit. With this deck, that situation WILL happen half of your games (esp. vs Jinteki).
“Programs are good” : try the deck because there’s a huge anti-synergy problem with 2 parts breakers like Mimic in those kind of MaxX.
Bank Job is an idea like that, if the credit per clic all matters and not % of drawing.
This works very well in my meta but if I understood well, it’s not the case at all here.
This is what happens when you make a thread called levyless maxx…
1 Like
Nah, it was fine until the ill-advised summon.
2 Likes
I’ll fix everything. Yo, @Cthulhu. Come clean up this mess.
Let’s make a little poll before I’m banned again for whatever “speaking too much engrish” reason.
Who played that kind of deck, who never did ?
2 Likes
MFW I clicked a thread about an interesting idea, and got 10 minutes of solid enjoyment instead.
I hate diluting my influence though. I tried the 59 card corp thing for a while, and stopped. I cant imagine pulling a Long Voyage on a runner deck would make me appreciate the idea any more.
2 Likes
Levyless MaxX = Netrunner: The Long Voyage
1 Like
You know your posts for the most part are fine and contribute to a certain side of the argument. I understand English is not your first language and sometimes it takes some work to interpret however it’s not all that hard.
However!! Every time you put math equations into your post or try and support your argument with numbers any attempt to try and interpret is thrown out the window. Continue to post and argue your point, just do it with concepts/ideas/pros/cons and try to avoid the math (even though you seem to be proficient at it, it just doesn’t translate well on paper)
6 Likes
@Xavi I’d ok with you, “but”. Will “stop it”, then.
The problem is if people does things by instinct with that particular runner, they can be wrong. Look at these 30% of game where you used 4inf for nothing.
By default, people (and me) invalidate the tower approach. The problem is she is something.
Tell me, who can do a ratio of ±66% with a Kate/Andromeda/whoever non Maxx tower deck, me or a top player ? Even 50% ? Even 30%? Surely not me.
So there is something there. By math, and by experience.
In that situation, I’m surely not talented enough to explore alone there.
I was very happy someone remarked that same mechanism. That’s the primary sense of the LOTR quote I put, if you guys thoughed it was Cthulhesque or something, that’s funny and fine too. 
I think Calimsha knew or guessed that, that’s why he @ me (we are both very vocal on r4g, to say the least).
I’m not talented enough to win something to prove (if you ever knew who is in my store, it’s frightening : I have maybe 6-7 regulars of the top 16 of France nationals).
That is only it. Show Andro/NEH or nothing.
I never fielded her, I was searching to build something strong with the corp - stupid builder pride, there, won’t use a known thing. Anything I build with EtF/NEH is strong these days (I’m a mono-Jinteki player usually, from C&C), so I might come with these at a next store, maybe I’ll be near the middle or something. You just don’t know the players there.
Yesterday, I played a game with @thiamine, with 3 Larla / 1 sot with Maxx, very different deck (wyldside / chronotype).
Nothing showed. 9 inf for nothing. That was very unfun. Previous game vs Hayley was one of the best matches I have ever played for long though. I could not imagine Hayley was “this”.