Trouble Against Big Decks??

[SSJRiven]

so i keep my deck size to 60 cards, it makes it more consistent. yet somehow whenever i face off against someone with more than 60 cards, they always seem to have the answers to everything i try. whats the deal? is this how the game is supposed to be? or are they just getting lucky because they have more of a specific card type like "destroy creature" or deal damage to creature"? im so confused.

[DontMisunderstand]

You've made a very unsafe assumption, and are coming across evidence that your assumption is incorrect.

[ChaffyExpert]

I've seen the exact same thing, 250 cards somehow have the perfect hand and counter to everything i do. Same with the occasional slightly modifier white blue starter deck.

They probably have a bunch of synergizing cards and card draw, so they just get more of everything, mixed with some insane luck.

It's weird though, because i have no issue with it being 250 cards, that just means they are less likely to draw a specific card, it's just they somehow draw exactly what they need to counter everything. Probably because it's a control deck of some sort.

[DontMisunderstand]

Originally posted by ChaffyExpert:

I've seen the exact same thing, 250 cards somehow have the perfect hand and counter to everything i do. Same with the occasional slightly modifier white blue starter deck.

They probably have a bunch of synergizing cards and card draw, so they just get more of everything, mixed with some insane luck.

It's weird though, because i have no issue with it being 250 cards, that just means they are less likely to draw a specific card, it's just they somehow draw exactly what they need to counter everything. Probably because it's a control deck of some sort.

It is technically true to say that those larger decks will be less consistent, however it's incorrect to say that it's less consistent by a mathematically significant amount. In terms of mana consistency, we're looking at 6 in 10000 games where that makes a difference. And in terms of consistency with answers it's similarly insignificant if you're using the same ratios of cards to fill a given role.

A deck with 60 cards, 12 of which have the same purpose, there's a 95% chance you have at least one of them in the first 5 turns of the game. A deck with 250 cards, and 50 filling the same purpose, that chance is still 93.6% to have in the first 5 turns.

The actual issue in question is a misalignment of expectations; you're expecting the size of the deck to have a much much larger impact on consistency than the math suggests.

[Malvastor]

The default deck size is 60. It's likely that most people aren't going to roll up with a 250 card deck unless they're very certain that they've built it so they can pull what they need from it.

[Winter Wolf]

Originally posted by Malvastor:

The default deck size is 60. It's likely that most people aren't going to roll up with a 250 card deck unless they're very certain that they've built it so they can pull what they need from it.

I would not go that far. I have faced many max sized decks where I had a medium draw and my op still had yet to show a plan of any kind before I won. That to me says that a lot of people do in fact build large decks without making sure they work reasonably well. Granted each case is separate and maybe I am just a really lucky guy (my own track record would debate that) and all their other games with the deck they had consistent early draws and good plans to win the game.

I would say there are players who have figured out how to build decks and sometimes they play larger decks for the heck of it, knowing they are sacrificing some focus for flexibility and expect to win through any poor draws. And the rest copy their idea without understanding how it works and then end up facing some midlevel boss like myself and wonder why it didn't work.

[Malvastor]

Originally posted by Winter Wolf:

Originally posted by Malvastor:

The default deck size is 60. It's likely that most people aren't going to roll up with a 250 card deck unless they're very certain that they've built it so they can pull what they need from it.

I would not go that far. I have faced many max sized decks where I had a medium draw and my op still had yet to show a plan of any kind before I won. That to me says that a lot of people do in fact build large decks without making sure they work reasonably well. Granted each case is separate and maybe I am just a really lucky guy (my own track record would debate that) and all their other games with the deck they had consistent early draws and good plans to win the game.

I would say there are players who have figured out how to build decks and sometimes they play larger decks for the heck of it, knowing they are sacrificing some focus for flexibility and expect to win through any poor draws. And the rest copy their idea without understanding how it works and then end up facing some midlevel boss like myself and wonder why it didn't work.

I'm working off the assumption that if you've just started playing and don't know much, when you hear "bring a 60 card deck" you're going to put 60 cards in it. Making a 250 card deck doesn't necessarily imply a lot of skill, like you said, but if you're making that decision I figure it implies you're putting a more-than-default amount of thought in already. Your plan may not work but you do have a plan (even if it is copying what you saw someone else do) which is more than some players can say.

[Winter Wolf]

Fair nuff. Hard to argue with a hypothetical. And of course, the newest players are going to tend towards what is common and familiar to the community (60 card decks, no sideboard because best of one and probably as close to top tier as possible.)

[ChaffyExpert]

Originally posted by DontMisunderstand:

Originally posted by ChaffyExpert:

I've seen the exact same thing, 250 cards somehow have the perfect hand and counter to everything i do. Same with the occasional slightly modifier white blue starter deck.

They probably have a bunch of synergizing cards and card draw, so they just get more of everything, mixed with some insane luck.

It's weird though, because i have no issue with it being 250 cards, that just means they are less likely to draw a specific card, it's just they somehow draw exactly what they need to counter everything. Probably because it's a control deck of some sort.

It is technically true to say that those larger decks will be less consistent, however it's incorrect to say that it's less consistent by a mathematically significant amount. In terms of mana consistency, we're looking at 6 in 10000 games where that makes a difference. And in terms of consistency with answers it's similarly insignificant if you're using the same ratios of cards to fill a given role.

A deck with 60 cards, 12 of which have the same purpose, there's a 95% chance you have at least one of them in the first 5 turns of the game. A deck with 250 cards, and 50 filling the same purpose, that chance is still 93.6% to have in the first 5 turns.

The actual issue in question is a misalignment of expectations; you're expecting the size of the deck to have a much much larger impact on consistency than the math suggests.

I'm not talking about mana.

As i SPECIFICALLY SAID, your odds of drawing a specific card goes down, since you can only have 4 of any one card. 4 of the same card in a 60 card deck is a higher percentage than 4 cards in a 250 card deck.

Yes, you can put cards with duplicate affects, so that's probably why said decks can reliably draw, say, an "exile target card". BUT most cards, for example creature cards, that are worthwhile (aka are a win condition) are unique, and it's best when you have a specific other card that synergizes well.

The odds of drawing both of said cards for a 2 card combo that goes well, is only 8 in 250, so less than 4% of the deck. I'm not sure what the statistics on drawing that is, but it would have to be really low.

Also, what affect has 50 cards that do the same affect? Except for Historic, i don't think there are THAT many cards with essentially the same affect. I could say, maybe 12, IE 3 different cards with similar affects is plausible, for things like "counter target spell" or "kill creature" or "exile creature"... but 50? that is like 13 different cards, 4 of each, with the exact same affect.... again, unless it's historic, i don't see how that is even possible for even things like "counter target spell" or something like that.

The thing is, we don't have infinite cards to work with, there is a set limit of cards, 4 per card, and only a few different cards with similar enough affects, and again, creatures specifically usually have very unique affects with some exceptions. Because cards go out of rotation, even these exceptions are likely not within the standard/alchemy rotation

You seem to be forgetting here, that there isn't an infinite amount of cards, or cards with a similar enough affect. Aside from lands.

[HavokVonFaust]

Originally posted by Lord_Shiori:

so i keep my deck size to 60 cards, it makes it more consistent. yet somehow whenever i face off against someone with more than 60 cards, they always seem to have the answers to everything i try. whats the deal? is this how the game is supposed to be? or are they just getting lucky because they have more of a specific card type like "destroy creature" or deal damage to creature"? im so confused.

As my main deck is a Mill one, I hate those oversized decks. That said, I too find it really annoying how they seem to always get perfect draws.

[Gilga ™ |Yonaguni|]

250 card decks are fun. I prefer this kind of decks. Not to mention you can hit mystic very easy with a good 250 card deck.

[DontMisunderstand]

Originally posted by ChaffyExpert:

I'm not talking about mana.

As i SPECIFICALLY SAID, your odds of drawing a specific card goes down, since you can only have 4 of any one card. 4 of the same card in a 60 card deck is a higher percentage than 4 cards in a 250 card deck.

This is precisely why I went out of my way to brush past the part about mana, and specifically focus on exactly the odds of drawing the cards that do the thing you need them to. The specific card name is in no way relevant, because you don't put cards in because of their name. You put them in because of the effect they have. There are only really something like 6 or 7 roles a card plays, generally speaking. Mana advantage, card advantage, threats, removal, or tempo plays. Generally everything is one or more of those, and generally those are interchangeable with each other. The exact number doesn't matter, the same way the exact nuance of the effect doesn't actually affect consistency. It doesn't matter whether a gates deck drops Palantir, Guild Summit, black market connections, cosmos elixir, or any other arbitrary example of a card draw engine. What matters is that it's a card draw engine at all. Likewise it doesn't actually matter which removal you draw, it matters that you draw removal. Same with threats. The niche cases where this general rule isn't true involve extremely complex and specific board states. Yes, increasingly specific board states have increasingly narrow one-card blowout answers. But you don't NEED the one-card blowouts to stay in the game. I've been in dozens of situations where I thought to myself "Ok, if I draw The Eternal Wanderer I win", fail to draw it, and still win 6 turns later simply because I drew something else that didn't do as well as that would have, but did enough to dig me out of the hole.

There are almost zero cards ever printed that are truly irreplaceable in a deck, in a generic sense. And the ones that are actually irreplaceable are so niche that a 60 card deck can't afford to put them in to begin with.

[ChaffyExpert]

Originally posted by DontMisunderstand:

Originally posted by ChaffyExpert:

I'm not talking about mana.

As i SPECIFICALLY SAID, your odds of drawing a specific card goes down, since you can only have 4 of any one card. 4 of the same card in a 60 card deck is a higher percentage than 4 cards in a 250 card deck.

This is precisely why I went out of my way to brush past the part about mana, and specifically focus on exactly the odds of drawing the cards that do the thing you need them to. The specific card name is in no way relevant, because you don't put cards in because of their name. You put them in because of the effect they have. There are only really something like 6 or 7 roles a card plays, generally speaking. Mana advantage, card advantage, threats, removal, or tempo plays. Generally everything is one or more of those, and generally those are interchangeable with each other. The exact number doesn't matter, the same way the exact nuance of the effect doesn't actually affect consistency. It doesn't matter whether a gates deck drops Palantir, Guild Summit, black market connections, cosmos elixir, or any other arbitrary example of a card draw engine. What matters is that it's a card draw engine at all. Likewise it doesn't actually matter which removal you draw, it matters that you draw removal. Same with threats. The niche cases where this general rule isn't true involve extremely complex and specific board states. Yes, increasingly specific board states have increasingly narrow one-card blowout answers. But you don't NEED the one-card blowouts to stay in the game. I've been in dozens of situations where I thought to myself "Ok, if I draw The Eternal Wanderer I win", fail to draw it, and still win 6 turns later simply because I drew something else that didn't do as well as that would have, but did enough to dig me out of the hole.

There are almost zero cards ever printed that are truly irreplaceable in a deck, in a generic sense. And the ones that are actually irreplaceable are so niche that a 60 card deck can't afford to put them in to begin with.

You can only have 4 of one card, and except for instants that generally have 4-5 different cards doing the same thing (but still not enough to have 50 cards that do the exact same thing) and creatures tend to have unique abilities.

Unless you are in Historic, there is only a certain amount of cards in rotation.

[DontMisunderstand]

Originally posted by ChaffyExpert:

You can only have 4 of one card, and except for instants that generally have 4-5 different cards doing the same thing (but still not enough to have 50 cards that do the exact same thing) and creatures tend to have unique abilities.

Unless you are in Historic, there is only a certain amount of cards in rotation.

Give me an example of a unique creature that is ever necessary for a well built deck to consistently have on the battlefield.

[Sp4c3M0nk3y]

This game is rigged big time. It's as simple as that.

[Malvastor]

Originally posted by Sp4c3M0nk3y:

This game is rigged big time. It's as simple as that.

We're talking about deck size (that's an e you degenerates). Are you saying the game is rigged to make 250-card decks win?