Hello fellow Beachbums,
I have spent the last couple of weeks analyzing the effects of what happens when my opponent N's me, and I think I have enough data points to tell the story.
So, here we go. To start with, let me state that I specifically studied what happened when my opponent played N against me: how many cards did I have, have many cards did I increase / decrease after the N, and whether his playing N helped me, hurt me, or had a neutral affect.
That last part involves some judgment - there are sometimes when it's very clear that it either helped or hurt, but the majority of the time it was very much a grey area and not clear cut.
Basically, I weighed three factors: pokemon, draw support, and energy. I measured what I had in my hand before and what was left after. And this is where it gets murky: often times I might have a pokemon I need in my hand that gets whisked away, but I might not have had draw support before but now got a supporter I needed. Or I might have had an essential energy card taken away only to be replaced by a pokemon that I could bring into the game to help me.
Pretty much, if it wasn't very clear, then I would just give it a neutral rating, and the majority of the times I was N'd, this was the case.
So on to the data itself:
Overall, I evaluated a total of 123 times that my opponent played N against me. In 44 of these cases (36%), the N helped me, in 31 cases it hurt me (25%), and in 48 cases it was a net neutral affect - 39% of the time it neither hurt nor helped me. Looking at it from the top down, you can basically say that by playing N, about two thirds of the time, you're not going to help your opponent.
However, I would suggest that you completely ignore those numbers and dig a little deeper to find the true evaluation of this analysis.
In order to do that, I looked at the net card differential after playing the N. What I found was:
If the net card differential was -2 or less (-2, -3, -4, or -5), playing N helped the opponent ZERO times. In the twenty times where this occurred, 13 times (65%) it hurt the opponent, and 7 times (35%) it had a neutral affect.
If the net differential was -1 or less, it only helped 2 in 35 times. Bottom line: if you're leaving your opponent with less cards than he had before, there's only about a 6% chance that you're actually helping your opponent by playing N.
The flip side: if you are giving your opponent 2 additional cards or more, there is about a 75% chance that you are helping him out as well. In 18 out of 24 cases where card differential was +2 or greater, playing N actually aided the opponent.
And in cases where N only gave the opponent 1 additional card: that improved their hand 53% of the time (9 out of 17 occurrences).
Obviously, the counter argument to this is that playing N helps your hand out probably 80 to 90 percent of the time. However, this should give you reason to at least think about whether you should play N if you're giving your opponent even 1 additional card. I'd be interested in knowing how many people that stat surprised - I didn't think it was that significant. That's why I advised earlier to ignore the top level analysis - this is the most important part of my study right here: should I play N if it gives my opponent even 1 additional card?
And for the net zero situations: about half of the time it neither helped nor hurt. In 22 out of 47 cases, playing N had a neutral affect. In 15 out of 47 cases (32%) it helped the opponent, and in 10 out of 47 cases (21%) it hurt the opponent. That scenario reflects the overall numbers: about two thirds of the time, if playing N gives your opponent the same amount of cards, you're not helping him out.
So, to me, the lesson I'm taking out of this is that unless I absolutely have to, I should only play N if I'm leaving my opponent with the same amount of cards or less. I don't think I'm going to substitute any birches or Shaunas for N's at this point, but that might be something to consider. That would be a different study, and I'm not sure exactly how to work that.
Anyway, hope this at least gives you something to think about.
I have spent the last couple of weeks analyzing the effects of what happens when my opponent N's me, and I think I have enough data points to tell the story.
So, here we go. To start with, let me state that I specifically studied what happened when my opponent played N against me: how many cards did I have, have many cards did I increase / decrease after the N, and whether his playing N helped me, hurt me, or had a neutral affect.
That last part involves some judgment - there are sometimes when it's very clear that it either helped or hurt, but the majority of the time it was very much a grey area and not clear cut.
Basically, I weighed three factors: pokemon, draw support, and energy. I measured what I had in my hand before and what was left after. And this is where it gets murky: often times I might have a pokemon I need in my hand that gets whisked away, but I might not have had draw support before but now got a supporter I needed. Or I might have had an essential energy card taken away only to be replaced by a pokemon that I could bring into the game to help me.
Pretty much, if it wasn't very clear, then I would just give it a neutral rating, and the majority of the times I was N'd, this was the case.
So on to the data itself:
Overall, I evaluated a total of 123 times that my opponent played N against me. In 44 of these cases (36%), the N helped me, in 31 cases it hurt me (25%), and in 48 cases it was a net neutral affect - 39% of the time it neither hurt nor helped me. Looking at it from the top down, you can basically say that by playing N, about two thirds of the time, you're not going to help your opponent.
However, I would suggest that you completely ignore those numbers and dig a little deeper to find the true evaluation of this analysis.
In order to do that, I looked at the net card differential after playing the N. What I found was:
If the net card differential was -2 or less (-2, -3, -4, or -5), playing N helped the opponent ZERO times. In the twenty times where this occurred, 13 times (65%) it hurt the opponent, and 7 times (35%) it had a neutral affect.
If the net differential was -1 or less, it only helped 2 in 35 times. Bottom line: if you're leaving your opponent with less cards than he had before, there's only about a 6% chance that you're actually helping your opponent by playing N.
The flip side: if you are giving your opponent 2 additional cards or more, there is about a 75% chance that you are helping him out as well. In 18 out of 24 cases where card differential was +2 or greater, playing N actually aided the opponent.
And in cases where N only gave the opponent 1 additional card: that improved their hand 53% of the time (9 out of 17 occurrences).
Obviously, the counter argument to this is that playing N helps your hand out probably 80 to 90 percent of the time. However, this should give you reason to at least think about whether you should play N if you're giving your opponent even 1 additional card. I'd be interested in knowing how many people that stat surprised - I didn't think it was that significant. That's why I advised earlier to ignore the top level analysis - this is the most important part of my study right here: should I play N if it gives my opponent even 1 additional card?
And for the net zero situations: about half of the time it neither helped nor hurt. In 22 out of 47 cases, playing N had a neutral affect. In 15 out of 47 cases (32%) it helped the opponent, and in 10 out of 47 cases (21%) it hurt the opponent. That scenario reflects the overall numbers: about two thirds of the time, if playing N gives your opponent the same amount of cards, you're not helping him out.
So, to me, the lesson I'm taking out of this is that unless I absolutely have to, I should only play N if I'm leaving my opponent with the same amount of cards or less. I don't think I'm going to substitute any birches or Shaunas for N's at this point, but that might be something to consider. That would be a different study, and I'm not sure exactly how to work that.
Anyway, hope this at least gives you something to think about.
. However, I think you are missing an important point, the deck(s) that are being played, and the timing of when N is played. IMO, N is one of the best disruption cards, and one of the best cards overall. N has a risk/reward system where you have to think about every action, and you have to be flexible to the situation presented to you. I can go on and on about N, so I'll get back to my original point. It depends on the decks being played. Even if the odds are not in my favor, but N will disrupt my opponent, I will play it. No hate but, *puts on glasses* I don't think N is a "Black and White" card (I have no regrets).
