Doesn't even have all my registered decks in it...

Could you briefly elaborate more on how SAS ratings work? Pretend I'm at work and can't access the site.

I usually don't put much stock into ratings but I'm always a little curious into how people come up with systems. Thanks.

10 hours ago, TheSpitfired said:

Doesn't even have all my registered decks in it...

Import them, if they are registered you just need the url from the deck on the app.

22 hours ago, TheSpitfired said:

Doesn't even have all my registered decks in it...

Could you briefly elaborate more on how SAS ratings work? Pretend I'm at work and can't access the site.

I usually don't put much stock into ratings but I'm always a little curious into how people come up with systems. Thanks.

Basic idea is that it measures the power of the cards in the deck, then gives bonuses for synergies (Cooperative Hunting with high creature count for example) and penalties for anti-synergies (Glorious Few with that same high creature count). Most decks clock in at the 70-80 range from what I've seen so far.

Shh, don't do the work for them!

I actually followed up on this myself at home. I've made my feelings about deck ratings known in past posts so my first temptation was to be dismissive, especially when several of my decks that are very different all ranked extremely close to each other.

However I've had some time to think about it and considering the ratings when I look at how much success I (and others) have and haven't had with my decks I have say this is actually a fairly good read on the decks.

I'll still maintain that ratings aren't the only one time tell-all for your deck (you need to play with it, I will die on this hill lol) but I think this is a half-decent start and am willing to argue that it's better than ADHD.

Ironically, of my 10 decks my favorite two to play with (ranked highest to lowest) are #8 and #9. You may unofficially peg me as a masochist.

EDIT: the deck that wasn't registered is showing up today, might have just been a website error. It's the one that made me stop calling bad decks "finesse" decks and the rating here backed that up too (60 SAS).

@TheSpitfired

The site does provide a "one number" rating system, which has its pros and cons. To me it mostly helps me discover decks that are likely to be good, or likely to be bad. And it's also cool seeing which decks are more complex (higher synergy and antisynergy) vs. have raw power (high card rating). But there are a lot of complexities it doesn't capture and I don't intend it to capture. So it doesn't surprise me when a deck that is better in real play is, for example, 10 points worse in SAS than another deck. But I've gotten a lot of feedback that it gets more decks right than wrong.

I know you said pretend you are at work and you can't access the internet, but did you read the about page? It has a lot of details about the philosophy and details. But simply put, it scores each card (card rating) then gives synergies and antisynergies for each card with traits of the deck and traits of other cards.

The site should be pulling new decks every 10 minutes. If you want it quicker then the import is the way to go.

Sorry I was so slow responding! I'm pretty active on Reddit, but forgot to check these forums after I made the post.

On 2/8/2019 at 6:30 PM, CorayThan said:

@TheSpitfired

The site does provide a "one number" rating system, which has its pros and cons. To me it mostly helps me discover decks that are likely to be good, or likely to be bad. And it's also cool seeing which decks are more complex (higher synergy and antisynergy) vs. have raw power (high card rating). But there are a lot of complexities it doesn't capture and I don't intend it to capture. So it doesn't surprise me when a deck that is better in real play is, for example, 10 points worse in SAS than another deck. But I've gotten a lot of feedback that it gets more decks right than wrong.

I know you said pretend you are at work and you can't access the internet, but did you read the about page? It has a lot of details about the philosophy and details. But simply put, it scores each card (card rating) then gives synergies and antisynergies for each card with traits of the deck and traits of other cards.

The site should be pulling new decks every 10 minutes. If you want it quicker then the import is the way to go.

Sorry I was so slow responding! I'm pretty active on Reddit, but forgot to check these forums after I made the post.

So, synergy means it relies on a specific card type and there are some number of those types in the deck, antisynergy I assume means the card harms some card type and the deck also contains that?

How do you handle things that might seem to be antisynergy, but provide a potentially large situational benefit? (Ie Martians make bad allies, One last job, etcetera)

How would you rate this deck?

Frau Backtam Greenfield

It gives a low sas (68), but i'm having mostly wins on crucible (struggling a bit vs sanctum though).

A lot of time by slowing the other player (miasma, drumble and bait n switch), gaining amber and forging keys meanwhile. And often in the endgame by killing off my own creatures with soul snatcher and pawn sacrifice, positron bolt, boobytrap and more. And with two bad pennys multiple times.

Also able to control the opponents board if needed with the many creatures and direct dmg (although struggling against sanctum with armor on this department).

Why doesnt the sas seem to match my win/loss on crucible?

13 hours ago, player3851034 said:

How would you rate this deck?

Frau Backtam Greenfield

It gives a low sas (68), but i'm having mostly wins on crucible (struggling a bit vs sanctum though).

A lot of time by slowing the other player (miasma, drumble and bait n switch), gaining amber and forging keys meanwhile. And often in the endgame by killing off my own creatures with soul snatcher and pawn sacrifice, positron bolt, boobytrap and more. And with two bad pennys multiple times.

Also able to control the opponents board if needed with the many creatures and direct dmg (although struggling against sanctum with armor on this department).

Why doesnt the sas seem to match my win/loss on crucible?

No metric is going to measure everything. Part of what it can't measure is how well a player navigates the nuances of a particular deck. You seem to be handling it well; better than what SAS or ADHD might suggest. So take pride in that.

I think what they aren't measuring is your effectiveness with the Soul Snatcher. Turning Bad Pennys into repeatable Æmber generators is normally done with Seeker Needles; you are doing it with Soul Snatchers and your way it doesn't matter if you attack or your opponent does. Add to that the idea of sacrificing your underpowered creatures for Æmber, and this probably explains your overperforming the SAS/ADHD ratings.

13 hours ago, player3851034 said:

Why doesnt the sas seem to match my win/loss on crucible?

" Please keep in mind this system will never judge decks as accurately as a human, and it will inaccurately judge many decks, especially ones with very complex interactions or strategies. So just because SAS thinks your deck is bad, or average, doesn't mean it is in real play! "

I pulled this right off the decksofkeyforge website in the "About SAS" section. You have to stop looking at ratings as the end all be all for how a deck holds up. It's the start of the conversation, not the finishing point.

My very first deck is rated a 69 SAS. OF the 12 decks I own it is ranked #9 by that rating. However, as it is the one I have played the most with it is far and away the deck I am the most comfortable using and remains one of my favorite decks to play games with. I have no doubt if I took it on the Crucible I'd see more wins than losses with it, that reflects my real life experience with it as well. I know what the deck does, what it is good at and what it can't do.

So start with ratings if you want to, but don't stay there and dwell on them.

19 minutes ago, TheSpitfired said:

" Please keep in mind this system will never judge decks as accurately as a human, and it will inaccurately judge many decks, especially ones with very complex interactions or strategies. So just because SAS thinks your deck is bad, or average, doesn't mean it is in real play! "

I pulled this right off the decksofkeyforge website in the "About SAS" section. You have to stop looking at ratings as the end all be all for how a deck holds up. It's the start of the conversation, not the finishing point.

My very first deck is rated a 69 SAS. OF the 12 decks I own it is ranked #9 by that rating. However, as it is the one I have played the most with it is far and away the deck I am the most comfortable using and remains one of my favorite decks to play games with. I have no doubt if I took it on the Crucible I'd see more wins than losses with it, that reflects my real life experience with it as well. I know what the deck does, what it is good at and what it can't do.

So start with ratings if you want to, but don't stay there and dwell on them.

So it wants to have its cake and eat it too. Great.

21 hours ago, Derrault said:

So, synergy means it relies on a specific card type and there are some number of those types in the deck, antisynergy I assume means the card harms some card type and the deck also contains that?

How do you handle things that might seem to be antisynergy, but provide a potentially large situational benefit? (Ie Martians make bad allies, One last job, etcetera)

Well, if you can reverse the antisynergy, have at it. That's what playing decks give you. I mean moving your queen early is normally a bad idea in chess, but a queen move on the second or third move can be checkmate if the right situation appears on the board.

27 minutes ago, Derrault said:

So it wants to have its cake and eat it too. Great.

I mean I don't understand how the OP being transparent and saying ratings aren't everything from the get-go is an issue, but yes.

Also, Radiant Truth . Pie, not cake.

7 minutes ago, TheSpitfired said:

I mean I don't understand how the OP being transparent and saying ratings aren't everything from the get-go is an issue, but yes.

Also, Radiant Truth . Pie, not cake.

I prefer Terms of Redress : Thou shalt wear pants. 😆

20 hours ago, TheSpitfired said:

I mean I don't understand how the OP being transparent and saying ratings aren't everything from the get-go is an issue, but yes.

Also, Radiant Truth . Pie, not cake.

I mean it can’t be both a system for rating decks and also not be a system for rating decks. Either it does something, or it does nothing and the ratings are meaningless.

30 minutes ago, Derrault said:

or it does nothing and the ratings are meaningless.

We are more in agreement than we thought I suspect...

2 hours ago, Derrault said:

I mean it can’t be both a system for rating decks and also not be a system for rating decks. Either it does something, or it does nothing and the ratings are meaningless.

It is a system for rating decks, but like all systems for rating decks, your mileage may vary.

Mh, I disagree with some counts.

For example, key abduction is in one of my decks counted as "low synergy". True, but then it doesn't count the fact that I get to throw back units into the opponent's hand if he has a large Mars board for example. Same with Hunting Which: In my deck I have few creatures, but most of them are in Untamed, and I have a nature's call so I can get an 18 aember play (and it's relatively easy to drop it considering I have a nepenthe seed) with the hunting which, 2 pixies and a flaxia.

It is a very perfectible tool.

15 hours ago, Derrault said:

I mean it can’t be both a system for rating decks and also not be a system for rating decks. Either it does something, or it does nothing and the ratings are meaningless.

It is a system for rating decks. Ratings are a beginning, not an end. Some people have a harder time of inspecting their deck than others and tools like this are helpful for them. If this doesn't help you, don't use it.

The math behind these ratings usually changes over time as well, as new understandings of the game are realized. It might be more useful in the future than you see it now.

If you're expecting a tool to identify the most powerful deck without question or variance, then you'll either have to wait indefinitely for someone to release that tool or figure out how to build it yourself.

6 hours ago, CaptainJaguarShark said:

It is a system for rating decks. Ratings are a beginning, not an end. Some people have a harder time of inspecting their deck than others and tools like this are helpful for them. If this doesn't help you, don't use it.

The math behind these ratings usually changes over time as well, as new understandings of the game are realized. It might be more useful in the future than you see it now.

If you're expecting a tool to identify the most powerful deck without question or variance, then you'll either have to wait indefinitely for someone to release that tool or figure out how to build it yourself.

I prefer to create a thesis where the tool is refined through study and use. If a deck is being given a rating I want to assess why it’s getting that rating, especially if practice does not comport with that.

Simply ignoring a system does nothing to improve upon it, hence my query.

So this system must have had a recent adjustment, all the ratings have changed.

I ran all my decks through and many of them changed significantly. Most notable would be a new deck I bought and played that had a 79 going down to a 71, and my worst deck was rated 60 but is now rated a 70. My best decks went down and the best deck that I bought for someone else to use actually went up. Color me quite confused.

While I still think I prefer this rating system over ADHD I am now back to my original stance of not liking rating systems at all and thinking they are pretty much good for selling your deck online only.

Does this mean Derrault and I agree? I think we should get an aember shard for that!

I believe the are trying to incorporate the results from the chainbound events into their ratings. So Until there is a very large number of chainbound decks it will continue to change.