>Fishysua |
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| WickedDarkman-
| | Hi there! It's been a while since I was here... |
| The curves I worked out had nothing to do with the spells you would be casting. Nothing at all. The presumtion was that you would want to cast a spell a turn for as many of the first turns as possible with the maximum mana available for that turn.
| |
|
| |
|
| ----
| | I can see that geomike is still out there. What about MM? |
|
| |
|
| Sorry, I tend to get carried away :) Also I had some trouble understanding the details of the whole thing. Manacurves are something I am doing a heavy research on using simulations. I would really like to know in more details what it was that you were trying to write about. If we are lucky we could compare the results???
| | Anyways I popped in to give of a little information. |
| P.S to use a signature hold down ctrl and alt then pound on the button with ~ untill you have four :)
| |
| [[User:Wickeddarkman|Wickeddarkman]] 04:58, 24 January 2007 (CST)
| |
|
| |
|
| No worries. To explain a little. My basic curves are all about expected value, i.e.
| | I've been studying mana for years with my simulations, and for a long time I have come to the conclusion that there is NO perfect manacurve regarding the sligh principle!!! |
|
| |
|
| 60 Cards, Draw first
| | Curves seem to beat each other in a mathematical complex way (Which I have named "Deckpulse") |
|
| |
|
| 8 at one, 7 at two, 6 at three, 5 at four, 9 at five, 25 Land.
| | When first I set out to discover the perfect manacurve way back in time, I was convinced that there simply had to be a sligh mana curve that was faster than all others. It was my goal/dream to use simulations to search for that golden curve. |
|
| |
|
| Comes from: turn one 8 draws/60 cards * n successes = 1: for n is approx 8 one drops/land. Total so far 8 + 8 = 16.
| | What I did not realize until so many years after, was that manacurves have two elements which they behave within. |
|
| |
|
| turn two 9 draws/60 cards * n successes = 1: for n is approx 7 two drops.
| | There was speed! |
|
| |
|
| Also turn two 9 draws/60 cards * n successes = 2: for n is approx 13 land. Total so far 8 + 7 + 13(using each land number as a minimum) = 28.
| | And later I found out that reliability was a second element. |
|
| |
|
| turn three 10 draws/60 cards * n successes = 1: for n = 6 three drops.
| | Speed and reliability together creates a "deckpulse" |
| | | (Forming a pattern which is far more complex than the below example) |
| ... 10 draws/60 cards * n successes = 3: for n = 18 land. Total so far 8 + 7 + 6 + 18 = 39.
| | Deck a is able to beat deck b. |
| | | Deck b is able to beat deck c. |
| turn four 11 draws/60 cards * n successes = 1: for n is approx 5 four drops.
| | Deck c is able to beat deck a. |
| | |
| ... 11 draws/60 cards * n successes = 4: for n is approx 21 land. Total 8 + 7 + 6 + 5 + 21 = 47.
| |
| | |
| turn five 12 draws/60 cards * n successes = 1: for n = 5 five drops.
| |
| | |
| ... 12 draws/60 cards * n successes = 5: for n = 25 land. Total 8 + 7 + 6 + 5 + 5 + 25 = 56.
| |
| | |
| turn six 13 draws/60 cards * n successes = 1: for n is approx 5 six drops
| |
| | |
| ... 13 draws/60 cards * n successes = 6: for n is approx 28 land. Total 8 + 7 + 6 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 28 = 64
| |
| | |
| Since carrying this algorithim into turn six results in too many cards and turn five doesn't is still four short we replace turn six's calculation with:
| |
| | |
| turn six 13 draws/60 cards * n successes = 2: for n is approx 9 five drops. New total 8 + 7 + 6 + 5 + 9 + 25 = 60 cards!
| |
| | |
| Does that clear things up? I'm going to post an example page. BTW, I upgraded your discussion of simulation to it's own section, it deserves it.
| |
| --[[User:Fishysua|Fishysua]] 08:28, 25 January 2007 (CST)
| |
| | |
| I didnt understand a single word :) I use simulations alone, I have no mathematical skills at all, but I am extremelly interrested in learning exactly what algorithm's do. I have heard about genetic algorithm's but dont really know what it is. I usually post about my projects with simulations in phyrexia.com 1st or 4th sphere. In there I also call myself by the name of [[User:Wickeddarkman|Wickeddarkman]] 05:09, 29 January 2007 (CST)
| |
| | |
| The article needs a serious workthrough!!! Fishysua are you still out there??? I think the topic of mana curves is important enough to give it a thorough retouch. Like what are it's origins, the differences between types of manacurves, their general use and so on. [[User:Faceless Wanderer|Faceless Wanderer]] 02:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ----
| |
| This comment concerns the state of the article as of my revision on December 2nd, 2007. The bolded titles are bolded because as examples they aren't independent enough to be subsections. If the paragraph in basic curves is not explanitory enough, note that there is a link to [[Statistical Analysis]] at the beginning of that text and a link to an example calculation towards the end (and as one of the bolded examples. Please, if you have any confusion post it as a specific question here. [[User:Fishysua|Fishysua]] 03:57, 3 December 2007 (GMT)
| |
Hi there! It's been a while since I was here...
I can see that geomike is still out there. What about MM?
Anyways I popped in to give of a little information.
I've been studying mana for years with my simulations, and for a long time I have come to the conclusion that there is NO perfect manacurve regarding the sligh principle!!!
Curves seem to beat each other in a mathematical complex way (Which I have named "Deckpulse")
When first I set out to discover the perfect manacurve way back in time, I was convinced that there simply had to be a sligh mana curve that was faster than all others. It was my goal/dream to use simulations to search for that golden curve.
What I did not realize until so many years after, was that manacurves have two elements which they behave within.
There was speed!
And later I found out that reliability was a second element.
Speed and reliability together creates a "deckpulse"
(Forming a pattern which is far more complex than the below example)
Deck a is able to beat deck b.
Deck b is able to beat deck c.
Deck c is able to beat deck a.