Hearthpwn

ever thought of Redemption?

according to Blizzard Support this post is no longer up to date...

SUPPORT 17:15:13
Sorry for the Delay. Apparently this issue has affected a large amount of players, and the developers have asked us to escalate the issues to them.
So I will gather all the information of your account, and escalate it, so they can fix it as soon as possible.
SUPPORT 17:21:15
Ok, all set! I have escalated the issue to the Developers. As soon as its fixed, we will let you now.
YOU 17:21:37
how will this be fixed?
SUPPORT 17:22:08
Not confirmed yet, if they will make the card available, or the Dust to create it once the next patch.
YOU 17:23:02
http://us.battle.net/hearthstone/en/forum/topic/20743374537?page=3#59
YOU 17:23:13
I have stumbled across one forum post of zeriyah

"Well met, The methods in which to acquire Captain’s Parrot and Old Murk-Eye were disabled with the 5.0 patch – before the official launch of Whispers of the Old Gods. After discussing this with the team, we agree that the cutoff time for acquiring Captain’s Parrot and Old Murk-Eye was not made entirely clear. Sorry about that; we would like to help! If you meet the requirements to acquire Old Murk-Eye and Captain’s Parrot before the Whispers of the Old Gods expansion goes live in your region and did not receive them, please open a support ticket with our customer service team. The support button can be found at the top of each page on playhearthstone.com. They will be happy to assist with this issue. After the official release of Whispers of the Old Gods, Captain’s Parrot and Old Murk-Eye will only be available through crafting."
YOU 17:23:43
is this how its going to happen?
SUPPORT 17:24:05
Not confirmed, as I said, the only information we have is to escalate it, and they Developers will fix it.
SUPPORT 17:24:11
That post is no longer up to date.
YOU 17:24:19
it isnt?
SUPPORT 17:24:25
Since the information we got, was less than an Hour ago.
SUPPORT 17:24:44
For now, we just escalate, and they will fix it.
YOU 17:24:56
ok, thanks anyway

why so complicated. wouldnt the simplest solution be:

draw 4 cards from a cardpool containing all cards.
draw 1 card from a cardpool containing only rare, epic and legendary cards.

(of course weightened by rarity)

usually the easiest solution is the way to go if you are not sure :P, plus its the easiest to calculate :P

Quote from BHTrix jump

Quote from Vinotan jump

Quote from BHTrix jump

...

So sure, you could divide the number by 5, but when you do this, the number now specifies the chance a SINGLE CARD is a card you do not need, whereas the formula now takes into account ALL 5 CARDS - e.g. THE ENTIRE PACK.

...

So again this is a PER PACK total, whereas you're thinking PER CARD.

Thanks a lot for your long explanation and your patience with me :P

I guess what buggs me the most is the fact that there appear percentages above 100% :P but thats my personal problem I guess ^^

I think some confusion may result in the lack of destinction between "expectation value" and "chance to draw a new card".

Of course you should buy the pack which has a higher expectation value to get a new card.

But I think you will agree with me, that in general propabilitys can never be above 100%, whether I think per pack or per card.

If there is a 0.275%*0.275%*0.275%*0.275%*0.275% chance that I get 5xIcehowl, then by consequence, the chance to get a new card is 100% minus this number, right?

If I understand you right, then the number you are listing is the expectation value/expected number of new cards drawn per pack, right?
I agree that this number is propably right and perhaps more usefull than the propability to get at least 1 new card in the pack.

But: I think the value should not be in %, but listed/described as what it is: The expected number of new cards per pack is 4,9999.

 

---

First, for your, percentages can't be above 100% thing:

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/58166.html

On the other hand, sometimes percentages are used like this: "The number of questions received was up 15.7%, from 5450 in February to 6305 in March." In other words, the increase from February to March was 6305-5450 = 855, and 855 is 15.7% of 5450. (These facts are true, by the way.) Now, what if the number of questions received went up to 14000 in April? (It didn't.) This would be an increase of 122% from March to April. There is nothing wrong with this - no law says that the number of questions can't do more than double from one month to the next.

---

The chance you get 1 new card in a pack of 5 cards, being 499% (or in essence, 5 new cards), as per the way it's worded currently, seems perfectly fine to me. ;)

If it would be changed to 100% denominators - the wording would have to be: The chance you get 5 new cards in a pack = ......... which just seems really odd to me, especially when you reach percentages like 5%. At this point I don't want to know what the chance is I get 5 new cards in a pack - I want to know what the chance is I get 1 card, an epic card, or a legendary card. Which is why there's a small row with percentages above. I think common and rare cards, are just not that important.

If it would be changed to 4.99, to me that's really exactly the same as %, just divided by 100.

My real question is, if it bothers you so much, why not simply change your own spreadsheet and add a /100, and change the text?

Finally, as per your definition: The moment you reach a number below 100%, the spreadsheet is fine right? So it's only at the beginning of the expansion, the first 30 packs, where it's ''wrong''? :P

EDIT: here's what I'll do.

Find a PhD in mathematics, I'm sure there's plenty on the interwebs, trolling forums and the like.
Relay the ''problem'' to him, return with an educated solution, a way to do it better - I will change the spreadsheet.
Until then I do not think this discussion is of any value to the spreadsheet.
Be sure to mention that 1 card has a 100% chance to be of at least rare quality!

The solution has to take into account that there's 5 cards a pack, and therefor has to calculate the chances of each card being new, not just 1 card. And it has to calculate the chances of each card being new : individually.
The solution is preferably in %.
And it has to be simple, so 1 number, no more.

1. There is nothing wrong with percentages being above 100%, but with chances being above 100%. I am pretty sure every mathematician will agree on that.

2. You are right in the fact that it might be my problem alone if it bugs only me I can simply change it myself in my own spreadsheet, but I thought you did such an amazing work with this spreadsheet, why not fix some little technicalitys/wordings to make it flawless. Dont get me wrong, I  dont want to talk down your work, I just want to help :P

Therefore you are also right in the way that this discussion has no big value for the quality of the spreadsheet, since your numbers are (afaik) right and sensical and everybody knows what is ment, but: again, why not make it mathematically correct :P

To summarize my concern (then I will shush, I promise :P):
it says: "the chance that a pack has A card you are missing is XXX"
 - as said above, chances should always be between 0 and 1
 - from the wording it sounds like the chance to get at least 1 new card. as it doesnt matter if I have 1 or 5 new cards in the pack.
 - what the number really means is the estimated amount of new cards per pack times 100
 - the chance to get a new card is 100% minus the chance that you draw 5 cards you allready own (see binomial distribution wiki link above)

thats it, if you somehow feel the urge to discuss this further with me, I suggest we do that via private message :P sorry that I spammed the forum so much, please excuse me :P

keep up the good work !

why do you think warlock is the best class to play a trogg(zor) deck with?

can you tell your thoughts?

Quote from BHTrix jump

...

So sure, you could divide the number by 5, but when you do this, the number now specifies the chance a SINGLE CARD is a card you do not need, whereas the formula now takes into account ALL 5 CARDS - e.g. THE ENTIRE PACK.

...

So again this is a PER PACK total, whereas you're thinking PER CARD.

Thanks a lot for your long explanation and your patience with me :P

I guess what buggs me the most is the fact that there appear percentages above 100% :P but thats my personal problem I guess ^^

I think some confusion may result in the lack of destinction between "expectation value" and "chance to draw a new card".

Of course you should buy the pack which has a higher expectation value to get a new card.

But I think you will agree with me, that in general propabilitys can never be above 100%, whether I think per pack or per card.

If there is a 0.275%*0.275%*0.275%*0.275%*0.275% chance that I get 5xIcehowl, then by consequence, the chance to get a new card is 100% minus this number, right?

If I understand you right, then the number you are listing is the expectation value/expected number of new cards drawn per pack, right?
I agree that this number is propably right and perhaps more usefull than the propability to get at least 1 new card in the pack.

But: I think the value should not be in %, but listed/described as what it is: The expected number of new cards per pack is 4,9999.

Quote from gummmbo jump

The problem is that you can't just add up the percentages for each card and get a usable percentage. If you flip two coins, there's a 50% chance that the first will be heads, and a 50% chance that the second will be heads. That doesn't mean that there's a 100% chance that you'll get heads once if you flip two coins, or a 250% chance that you'll get heads once if you flip 5 coins.

But, like I said earlier, you could divide by 100. If you flip 5 coins, you'd expect to get 2.5 heads. Similarly, the percentage reported on the spreadsheet is 100x the number of new cards you'd expect to get in a pack.

You are right, if f you flip 5 coins, you'd expect to get 2.5 heads or if you draw 5 cards you expect 4,99 cards if you have all but 1 (=expected value)

But you miss the crucial point. What is the chance that you get at least 1 card you are missing in a pack? (thats how its worded in the spreadsheet), Or with your coin: What is the chance that you get at least 1 head if you flip 5 times? The answer is 15,6%, assuming binomial distribution. The answer must be sth between 0 and 100%.

but still: how can I have an above 100% chance to get a new card in the first place? :D

 since there is a nonzero (x%) chance that I get 5xIcehowl, the chance that I get a card I dont own should be 100 minus x% chance, right?

or am I missing sth here?

lets assume you have only 1 TGT card, Icehowl for example, because you crafted him. Then the spreadsheet says, you have a 499% chance to get a card you are missing. But there is a non-zero chance, that in the pack you buy, there are 5xicehowl in the pack :P

Extreme Example, I know, but it works with other, more realistic szenarios aswell :P

Theres got to be sth wrong ^^ obviously the chance can only be between 0 and 100% 

is just simply dividing by 5 the right solution? Propably not.

Other question: have you taken into account the fact that you are guaranteed at least 1 rare or higher card? 

because lets assume you have all common cards (crafted) but not a single rare or higher, then the chance for a missing card should be 100%. (or 500% if dividing the result by 5 would be right)

Thanks bro,  you Are right, I messed those two up 

wait, ist this just single target heal? why is it called healing wave? shouldnt this be some kind of chain heal or sth?

both hyped and firebat both played a similar deck a couple of moths ago and it got pretty popular

http://www.hearthpwn.com/decks/138531-firebat-gvg-deck-wars-s3-wailing-soul-druid

never seen it on rogue, havent played both versions tho :P

try it out, dont know which one is better :P

but why rogue? isnt druid flat out better with the same deck?

First of all: Thanks for your feedback, much appreciated.

2nd: Can you give me a number of how many EU players you have?

Dont get me wrong, but somehow every Clan/Team which presents themselfes here or in the official Blizz forums lacks information about how many players they have in every region. Thats quite suspicious for me, like they try to hide that information on purpose :-D (maybe I'm just crazy :P)

The point is: I am a legend ranked player, I dont really need a team to get feedback on my decks or ideas (things that players from other regions could offer without being on my server) because I have Hearthpwn for that. I can read guides for ideas, I get feedback for the guides I've written.

What I really need is people to practice with and to go to tournaments with.

And therefore it is complete irrelevant for me that this clan has 2400 members, because its all about Hearthstone for me. An you have according to your homepage 34 HS players. From which I assume are the mayority on NA. Plus I gotta assume some of those players are not sirious HS players in the first place but are in the Clan for lets say Battlefield and just play HS occasionly (but I could be wrong on that one)

Hope you can understand me and my concerns a 'lil bit.

Thanks for your help buddy

I'd keep him for sure. One of the better gvg legendarys imo. I actually was thinking about crafting him (but I did not, he isnt that outstandig compered to others) but good nontheless.