Anyone here is using ADHD and comparing to the actual deck performances? My first deck ("J. Logan, Lavapit's Blind Queen", Brobnar, Dis, Sanctum - https://www.keyforgegame.com/deck-details/6453c9ff-0228-41a6-b14c-09b635a1dc5a) seemed very inconsistent and weak.

There's also onde little thing: the online excel gives different number than the discord tool. What's the most recently updated? For exemple, this "J. Logan, Lavapit's Blind Queen" deck is -0.116 in consistency via online excel and -0.053 in consistency via discord. And yeah, I know those numbers are mostly to show what the deck is good at and doesn't necessarily mean much else.

The differences from avg are: (excel - A: 3.76; B: 3.08; C: -4.10; E: -1.79), (discord A: 3.61; B: 3.45; C: -4.07; E: -0.80)

Only 12 total creatures. 3 of them in brobnar with tons of"ready and fight", things that care for fight/destroying, 2x Smith. My board control in Brobnar has the lowest number and actually feels really bad as most of the actions care about fighting, destroying etc.

4 Creatures in Sanctum and 2x Protect the Weak (upgrade). One of those is Havvel, which is a rare that cares for artifacts and I got none.

Aember generation looked ok in theory and by the numbers, but most of the times I was just using the cards to look for answers in the deck.

I'll obviously try more with it (before moving in to the other decks) because it might be just me being bad at my first tries. What to you think of this deck? And are your "good adhd decks" actually your better ones?

Additional: my third deck oppened has the same house combination (https://www.keyforgegame.com/deck-details/faf6b060-ef0c-42dc-975a-bee5b16bce8a) and has better stats, like 2.93 consistency. If my first one proves to be just bad/below average I'll try this one next just to experiment.

When I first started, I created little strategy guides for my decks based on my observations while playing. I made note of certain card combinations and what to try and shoot for versus certain cards/houses that could see play. Coming from 20+ years of playing MTG, I sorted my decks into "tempo, aggro, control, combo" based on these findings.

Then about a week ago, I was looking into things that could help me streamline things as I also have about 12 unopened decks (scanned them for the aember to get my first key, probably going to use them for my own tournaments since my LGSs aren't interested at this time other than to sell the decks). That is when I found the KF Compendium and the ADHD system.

What I found very interesting is that the scores given were matching the play styles that I had labeled for each deck. Some of it was common sense for the decks (ex. my Sarantuya deck is good at just generating aember with 2x Virt Works, 2x Routine Job, and 2x Ghostly Hand with ways to recur them), but where I want to go now with it is using the ADHD scores to assign chains.

Now this is still in its testing phase for me, but it uses the ADHD scores to come up with a number for both decks based on the +/- of average decks, find the difference and assign that many chains to the deck with the higher score.

Example:

Sarantuya = A (+12.43), B (-.61), C (+3.82), E (-2.58) = 13.06
Gravbalt = A (+1.1), B (+.05), C (+.16), E (+1.09) =2.4

Difference = 10.66

Sarantuya would take 11 chains

Where as:

The Wizardly Baker = -2.27
Gravbalt = 2.4

Difference = 4.67

Gravbalt would start with 5 chains

Depending on how expansions are going to be handled, these numbers could become obsolete in the future. Until then, I feel that the ADHD scores are a good starting point to understanding your deck as you start to play with it, and could be used as a good way to shortcut some games off of testing them. As more decks get opened and registered, the numbers will fluctuate, and outside of scores of +/- 3 or more, the game rules should keep things on an equal footing.

Sarantuya Deck Link: https://keyforge-compendium.com/decks/d765feb0-1cc1-4449-8ae3-a75852f78787

I'm one of the people who helps run/develop KeyForge Compendium. We talked with the owner of the Discord bot and the problem is on his end. Aminar (the creator of ADHD) is part of the KFC team, and you can usually count on the latest updates to his tool being found on the website.

21 hours ago, KandyKidZero said:

Now this is still in its testing phase for me, but it uses the ADHD scores to come up with a number for both decks based on the +/- of average decks, find the difference and assign that many chains to the deck with the higher score.

Interesting idea. Have you actually tested this idea? If so, it looked balanced for you?

I played 2 games with the new deck ( Banin ) and lost 2 against a friend of mine. By this chain system based on ADHD, I would be the one handicapped. Pretty bad. The sum of my averages gives me 10,4 and he has 1,39. Basically 9 chains! Both games were very close and going into reshuffles, both forging 2 keys. But in the end my deck has a below average aember control and not a lot of ways of denying/stopping keys. He just denied me multiple times while stealing into forging his own key

It's hard because A, B, C and E are not equal. What set my deck apart is the board control. Even my consistency is better. Don't know how the formula calculates that, and my deck seemed good, but also have some odd combinations in Sanctum. 2x Shield of Justice and Sigil of Brotherhood having only 3 Sanctum creatures... Even Protect the weak is almost always odd with few creatures. For efficiency he's got Logos with some archive and card drawing (also hidden stash in Shadows) and his stat in this category is negative. It's positive efficiency for me even if I have less card that do what E is described. I don't know, very odd.

I did use it last night and it did seem to make my games more fair. Albeit, this is still a small sample size with 6 different decks (my 4 and my friend's 2). I played my two highest scoring ones (giving me 10 and 8 chains) and my two lowest (giving him 5 and 4 chains).

I am hoping to get some more testing in this weekend with different groups.

The consistency score was calculated based on a bell curve, if I remember from reading the document page. (Just tried to find it, but they updated the compendium site and I couldn't find the link to the excel sheet anymore). I did not include the consistency score in the calculations, just the ABCE.

Issue is that you might get decks like this Andromeda F. Banpuddle, the Mad which has a score of

2.76, - 4.95, -0.84, 1.09 leaving a result of -1.94

So do I give my opponent 2 chains because I am bad at Aember control?

Look, with all due respect it’s a cute little deck analysis but it is not worth putting much stock into. My “worst” deck according to it has some neat tricks and is a lot of fun to play and is not as bad as the compendium suggests. Comparatively my “best” deck has been absolutely steamrolled by considerably worse decks.

There are quite a few things it doesn’t factor in, like player skill and creatures surviving to reap/fight and what not.

So at the end it’s kind of fun to see what it says, but that’s where it ends for me. Playing with the deck repeatedly will teach you more about how it works than anything else.

23 minutes ago, Lyraeus said:

Issue is that you might get decks like this Andromeda F. Banpuddle, the Mad which has a score of

2.76, - 4.95, -0.84, 1.09 leaving a result of -1.94

So do I give my opponent 2 chains because I am bad at Aember control?

It would be the difference between the two decks. My example even shows one with a negative number, so the difference would go to the player with the higher starting total. If you have -2.5 and your opponent has a 2.5, the opponent would get 5 chains.

I work closely with the person who created ADHD and it's *not* meant to be an evaluation of whether a deck is good or not -- which is actually a misconception trap that most people tend to fall into and we haven't found a solution to that yet. ADHD is simply there to help you understand better the strengths and weaknesses of a deck and kickstart the deck discovery process. And yes, discovering a deck through gameplay can often yield better, more detailed information.

As an example of how ADHD can help someone kickstart the process of deck discovery, here's a thread where someone was struggling with their deck and how I used ADHD scores to provide good starting point to build from:

Now, if you're an expert or seasoned pro, ADHD might not be as helpful for you -- or helpful at all. You might prefer a different, more tailored or sophisticated form of analysis. Those are actually things you'll start to see on KeyFoge Compendium in the near future (hopefully, after the weekend).

TL;DR - please don't assign chains based on ADHD scores. 😉

edit: grammar

15 minutes ago, TheSpitfired said:

Look, with all due respect it’s a cute little deck analysis but it is not worth putting much stock into. My “worst” deck according to it has some neat tricks and is a lot of fun to play and is not as bad as the compendium suggests. Comparatively my “best” deck has been absolutely steamrolled by considerably worse decks.

There are quite a few things it doesn’t factor in, like player skill and creatures surviving to reap/fight and what not.

So at the end it’s kind of fun to see what it says, but that’s where it ends for me. Playing with the deck repeatedly will teach you more about how it works than anything else.

Exactly, it is not a be-all-end-all, but lets you view how your deck varies against an average deck so these scores will keep changing as time goes on. All the scores that are attributed to each card was done to make things easy.

You will still have matches that come down to variance (Did you go second and get 5-6 of your best house?) and play skill (how many games has your opponent played with their deck/did you just crack this deck open because it had your favorite card in it?).

Until there is a way to start recording matches against each deck, hopefully via the app, then my suggestion is just a shorthand method of assigning chains instead of manually tracking everything. YMMV

I found some interesting things with ADHD also.

I scrimmaged my own decks versus each other, walking around to each side of the table on that turn. I also chose the best play for what is on the board, attempting to ignore what I knew the other deck had in it's hand. I would leave the winner on the table, and try another deck. I did this "king of the mountain" play for about twenty games. Overall, I found that my most successful decks had the best ADHD numbers.

I'm trying to find a way to determine an overall ADHD score for each deck. Right now, I'm thinking that adding up each of the scores makes sense, but I am not sure if that would accurately tell which deck has strong synergy. If each score is preferred to be more positive (larger), then wouldn't the largest sum of all of the ADHD scores give a view as to the deck's overall strength?

I understand that just because the numbers are high, that doesn't mean that the deck is amazing ...... but, wouldn't you be able to see how the deck works "in concept"? It's a look as to how the deck "could" play, or "could" draw. Bad rounds and hurtful combos against it could still happen.

Am I thinking about this the correct way, or am I missing an important part about ADHD ranking? What do you think?

I just now saw the reply about using the ADHD system to assign chains. This is similar to what I was thinking, as it seems to give a good look at the deck mechanics. My only differing opinion is that chains should round down. If the difference is 10.65, then I think it should be 10 chains and not 11. To me, the difference is simple. Since the ADHD difference hasn't made it up to the next number, I don't think that deck should be penalized extra. 10 chains is already going to be a huge disadvantage. I do like the idea of a system like this, and I am going to play test it against myself quite extensively.

I'm going to be looking to see if the ADHD sum should be rounded down or rounded up to make the closest games. Perhaps we should use normal rounding conventions (anything .49 and below is rounded down), but I am thinking that it would be more fair to round everything .99 and below down. In that case, a deck wouldn't have a chain until the ADHD sum difference has hit the next full chain number. It would make sense if it's "almost" powerful enough to get another chain, but that it doesn't quite get there. I guess the different opinions here is putting more emphasis in helping the deck that is behind, or putting emphasis in not handicapping the ahead deck too much. Only testing over long periods can determine which is more efficient.

ADHD sum difference chains has one big disadvantage, anonymity. In order to see the ADHD rating, the deck must be scanned and put onto compendium, This then gives the opponent an easy way to delve into the deck. Some people might not see this as a disadvantage, because each and every person in that tournament must have an adhd rating. Would you use the same rating and handicap system in a sealed tournament, or only archon? It would be interesting to see this work for sealed tournaments, because even those need to be balanced.

On 12/14/2018 at 4:10 PM, TheSpitfired said:

Look, with all due respect it’s a cute little deck analysis but it is not worth putting much stock into. My “worst” deck according to it has some neat tricks and is a lot of fun to play and is not as bad as the compendium suggests. Comparatively my “best” deck has been absolutely steamrolled by considerably worse decks.

There are quite a few things it doesn’t factor in, like player skill and creatures surviving to reap/fight and what not.

So at the end it’s kind of fun to see what it says, but that’s where it ends for me. Playing with the deck repeatedly will teach you more about how it works than anything else.

Yep, felt the same way. That's why I posted this here to test if the "best" decks were actually performing much better. My highest rating decks has a very solid brobnar and dis, but the sanctum in it makes for a looot of clunky turns. With 2x Shield of Justice, Sigil of Brotherhood, the artifact that heal combined with just 3 creatures make all those cards almost useless.

On 12/14/2018 at 4:30 PM, TheRealGadianton said:

I work closely with the person who created ADHD and it's *not* meant to be an evaluation of whether a deck is good or not -- which is actually a misconception trap that most people tend to fall into and we haven't found a solution to that yet. ADHD is simply there to help you understand better the strengths and weaknesses of a deck and kickstart the deck discovery process. And yes, discovering a deck through gameplay can often yield better, more detailed information.

As an example of how ADHD can help someone kickstart the process of deck discovery, here's a thread where someone was struggling with their deck and how I used ADHD scores to provide good starting point to build from:

Now, if you're an expert or seasoned pro, ADHD might not be as helpful for you -- or helpful at all. You might prefer a different, more tailored or sophisticated form of analysis. Those are actually things you'll start to see on KeyFoge Compendium in the near future (hopefully, after the weekend).

TL;DR - please don't assign chains based on ADHD scores. 😉

edit: grammar

I think it's really useful for that, especially for ABC. E and consistency not so much.

ABC will tell if your deck is above average in those things. Having a positive A just means you produce a little bit more than average, for exemple. And that's very good to know.

E and consistency bugs me a little. E definition is "This is a looser metric that applies to card effects that will allow you to play or use more cards in a turn. Archiving your cards, drawing cards, and activating cards from other factions all play in. It also covers effects that limit your opponents ability to play cards." and I got a deck with a good E and my friend decks's E was actually low, but his deck had multiple ways to archive and draw.