Dwarf racial vs Elf racial (calculations included)

*Edit: Changed to 13 deck size to 14 based on Kalin
*Edit: For values, people are saying im using baised values, but in fact, I always give the trait cycling side some advantage in my values just to proof trait cycling doesn't do much even in extreme cases
*Edit: Ok guys, I think you guys are getting it wrong what I am trying to proof.
I'm not trying to proof elf racial are better than dwarfs. As you can see in the calculations, the dwarf racial is better if trait cycling is considered.
I'm trying to proof that trait cycling doesn't do much and the reason why dwarfs are op is because of hp not because of abilities.
Try think of it this way, if the 17 hp elf mages are buffed to have solid rock, will many high ranked players start playing elf mages ?
No, because it will still die if it doesn't draw any blocks which is most games.
*Edit: change all cards to a positive number. Because positive cards should have positive number. Only negative cards should have negative hp increase. This will make calculations more complicated as giving an average card 0 hp increase simplifies calculations a lot. I'll still do the calculations anyway.
*Edit: I'm not even comparing specific cards anymore. I'm just comparing a card with 2 average skill, 1 trait cycling vs a skill with 2 average skill 1 run. This will remove a ton of bias you guys are saying a make

This post I'm going to show how a skill with 2 average effect + 1 positive trait compares to a skill with 2 average effect + run

If you don't want to see my calculations for whatever reason, you can skip to the data and Ill bold all the end results

For the original deck size, lets assume each player has 36 cards but they also run 6 traits besides their racial skills (that is way above average unless you are using a mage. If I run less traits, trait cycling won't work as well. This is an extreme case highlighting the effects of trait cycling)

I'll say the traits adds up to 0 benefit in the deck and only decrease the deck size. This is reasonable because people usually run some positive trait and some negative ones.

Let's assume each game lasts 6 turns. (I looked at the recent battles and battles that last around 15 minutes last about this long. usually someone surrenders so a battle doesn't last as long.)

Each turn players draw 2 cards except 3 on the first turn, so that is 2*5+3 = 13 cards in a game

Lets assume each skill in deck has an average hp increase of 2. (We can't just say if a card deals x damage, it has 2 hp increase, because most time you discard it instead of using it plus it can be blocked . Also, wizards will have low hp increase due to their low damage, but in fact they have longer range plus adding side effects besides damage)

assume Run has an average hp increase of 1 (because it is probably a below average card).

Edit: I don't even want to compare specific cards anymore to avoid all the bias people are saying I make

We are comparing a dwarf skill, which I say is 2 average skill + 1 positive trait cycling effect (we say it gives the same positive effect as using run, which is very extreme because it means you don't have to use it yet it still gives you an advantage the same as you are using run)
vs an elf skill, which we say is 2 average skill + 1 run:

probability of drawing trait* total hp increase = ((30-1) choose 12)* (1choose 1))/ (30choose 13) * (2 * 13(13 because the drawing effects adds 1 card to your deck) + 1 (the positive effect of the trait)) = 11.7
probability of not drawing trait* total hp increase = ((30-1) choose 13))/ (30choose 13) * (2 * 13) = 14.73

total = probability of drawing trait* total hp increase + probability of not drawing trait* total hp increase = 26.43hp

probability of drawing run* total hp increase = ((30-1) choose 12)* (1choose 1))/ (30choose 13) * (2 * 12(12 because run does not cycle) + 1 (the positive effect of run)) = 10.83
probability of not drawing run* total hp increase = ((30-1) choose 13))/ (30choose 13) * (2 * 13) = 14.73

total = probability of drawing run* total hp increase + probability of not drawing run* total hp increase = 25.56 hp

difference = 26.43hp - 25.56 hp = 0.87hp


This means a trait with the same benefits as using run (which means its a pretty good trait) gives you a 0.87 hp edge over run.

Conclusion:
As you can see above, positive traits gives you an advantage over having a positive effect that is not that good (like run) in your deck. We can see that dwarfs (which usually have a positive trait instead of run), count as having a 0.87hp advantage over elves. You might think this advantage is a lot and dwarfs racial should be nerfed. This is true, yet the mere 8 hp difference between dwarfs and elves is a bigger difference.

 

I can't decide if you are making a hilariously well done psuedomath troll post and consistently adhered to troll opinion, or if you are unintentionally doing this while serious, but either way, I award you 10/10.

Without getting bogged down in your 'numbers' (strong emphasis here), can I just ask you how you picked out your assumptions, and the values you assigned to them, and why a person reading this should trust your numbers/assumptions?

 

*slowclap*

 

It is very hard... as you can see most cards don't just do 1 effect.
If you think my values are off, you can change some of the card values or movement bonus values.
If not by too much, the results should be similar.
Most of the assumptions I based it off of in game data.
If not, I just picked a value I think is reasonable close to (not that there is an actual number. to calculate with)

 

Dorfen Cry

 

Is anyone saying the skills are the only reason? There's a lot of discussion about them, but that's because they're the easiest things to fix (and many elf skills are suicide). And you really need to look at all the skills commonly used, not just the two you think are good.

Actually, there is an indirect relationship between HP and card values: HP is determined by level (and race and class) and level also determines the power tokens available, which set an upper limit to the total value of cards in the deck. The exact values need to be calculated on a level by level basis, warriors separate from non-warriors. (I'll try to do this later today.)

First turn each char draws one extra card, not two. So 3 vs 2 if ignoring racial move.

 

One thing to consider, let's say you run dwarves with all advanced ferocity. Your smaller deck size leads to a greater chance to give your entire team a card, cycles your deck, AND allows you to remove anywhere from 0-x number of blocks from an opponents deck AND is a cantrip.

The utility and flat out card advantage over time you would obtain from running this by far outweighs any elven equivalent.

 

All you are saying is theories. In an actual game theory doesn't matter. I did the calculations while already factoring in trait cycling and proved trait cycling doesn't do much. Go do your own calculations and convince me trait cycling does do much.
What you are saying doesn't matter as long as there aren't proves. That is what you told me in chat and I did give you the proof. Right now what you are saying is straight out opinion based without reasoning

 

Good Post.
Many People are saying the reason why people are using dwarfs is because of their racial, and the hp are balanced.

I only chose 2 good dwarven and elf skills because I believe in high level pvp, people only use the good ones while ignoring non-usable ones.

Yes, you can try factoring in the total amount of hp vs card values. That will make the argument more towards the HP is a bigger factor than racial skills, though.
Also, I only mainly play MP so you can do the SP calculations yourself. Factoring in levels will make things complicated.

Yes, You are right about that. I always thought you draw 4 the first turn.
I will factor that into the calculations and edit my post. I don't think 14 vs 13 will matter much though

 

The difference is, I'm using actual facts. It is a fact that dwarves give card advantage. Your numbers, your "calculations" are based on made-up numbers and things that aren't true.

 

No. Those are not facts.
There is no such thing as a true number because there is no number to calculate to begin with
I estimated in a way that seems reasonable.
Everything you learn in science are estimations based on real life.
If you don't believe me, google.
You can't just say: trait cycle give me card advantage!
You need calculations to proof how much advantage it gives you

 

http://wiki.cardhuntria.com/wiki/Cards/Dwarven_Battle_Cry

GGNORE

 

Dwarven Battle cry is a really situational card and you can't consider it a good card as you need to have 2 more dwarfs compared to your opponent to consider a card advantage. Otherwise it is just a crappy card that give your opponent cards while counting as a GOLD card that wastes space. You usually see battle cry bundled with crappy cards next to it. You rarely see people run battle cry in MP unless they run firestorm or so. Many cards that are situational it is hard to make a calculation based on it.

 

I ran it at rank 1. If my deck is constructed to give me card advantage, and to cycle traits, even a 1:1 card draw 1 is still in my favor. Also, you are very short-sighted in your thinking. Because drawing 1 extra card for each person is about timing. AND my opponents aren't always 3 dwarves. I'm done responding because you are very obstinate, or trolling.

 

Same here.... I feel like you are a troll...

 

Oh my god... where do I begin?

This harlequin math for starters. I applaud you for trying to convert move cards into HP but I fail to see how you are getting these numbers out of the air, and I also disagree with the concept on principle. I also object to your failed use of combinatorics.

I'm not sure what game you are playing, but last time I checked there are 36 cards in a deck, not 30. From there your math gets steadily worse until I doubt there is any way to fix it. You assumptions are flawed too. I mean, if you assume that your average card from your deck "is bad" by far, since Dwarf traits cycle so much, by god elves are much better since they draw less of those bad cards. That makes sense.
I can see why people think you are trolling.

 

...... You should read how I get 30.... I assumed each player have 6 other traits in the deck.
If I use 36 instead.... the values will just go more towards my side as the trait cycling wont work as well.

I didn't assume the average card is bad.... I assume they are good..... go read my calculations
My arguments makes sense I think it is you guys who are disagreeing with my argument. It is just like people hundreds of years ago saying why earth should be flat instead of round.
You guys only think that way because everyone else is saying that but don't have any proof

 

Uhhhhh.... ahhh, wait.... I see what you're doing. Very nice. I'm not hatin'.

 

Well whatever you do, use good math and don't be personally biased.

30 cards is still complete bird poop. I mean, can you at least explain this rather than just stating that it's "way above average"? I count 4 as being pretty standard on Warriors and priest, (2 from martial/divine skill, 1-2 from most tokenless helmets and things like Rageblood, maybe Perilous Ringmail by some players, priest with a Shuddering Relic or two) and 6+ on wizards (and that's just from Trembling Staff and Electroporter Novice, not factoring the robe, boots or other items) .
I mean, I'm not trying to rain on your parade or anything, but either you haven't done a very good job explaining this, or all of these assumptions just don't add up.

You can't just take 6 trait cards out of the deck and ignore them. They do matter, they factor heavily into any combinations you make.
Order matters with traits. So even if you do factor them in, if you don't draw the traits first, then you don't gain the benefits of the traits (if any).

Also I protest you valuing Blind Rage as an average card that does nothing in terms of HP. If anything, having Blind Rage in your deck increases your average damage output by a measurable amount. More damage= less HP for your opponents. If you are going to assume that Toughness and Dodge are going to magically or some kind of twisted average prevent 5 points of damage, you should at least assume that a copy of Blind Rage in your deck should increase your damage output by _ HP per average game. Heck even ranking Blind Rage as a negative value for each time that it costs you 3 HP would make more sense than just pretending it is 0.

Lastly, I proclaim that you have chosen a completely arbitrary pair of "good" Dwarf and Elf Skills. Who isn't to say that one random blue token elf skill isn't better than one random blue token dwarf skill? That can be done in all sorts of ways.
Based on this single premise, I don't even care if you can prove things one way or the other. You sir are wasting your time.

 

30 is standard for an wizard, and do you really want me to switch the number of cards in deck to 33 or 34?
It will just prove trait cycling is more worthless. Because based on calculations, the lower number of traits you have, the worse trait cycling is.
For blind rage, yes, I said its effect is average compared to all other cards. Do you know what that means???? That means it count as a card better than run while still counting for trait cycling. Also, I say that average means 0, which is a card that does good things to your deck. Run is count as -1. Blind rage in this case is count as a 0 card (like same power as an attack that deals damage), and it decrease your deck size. That is really above average...