a problem with this sort of analysis is that it describes what the game is like when you play it with perfect knowledge of the seed you're playing and as many r

a problem with this sort of analysis is that it describes what the game is like when you play it with perfect knowledge of the seed you're playing and as many resets as you want. that isn't how almost anybody plays slay the spire, so it doesn't have practical relevance to what playing the game is like. it's cool as a theoretical exercise, but the answer ultimately doesn't matter for almost any human player of the game, and isn't a relevant thing for considering how the game should be designed and balanced. if we finally brute force every option from a difficult seed two years from now and find out that you actually can't beat it in any way that's not going to change how good or enjoyable the game is for people. the more problematic thing is all the seeds where a reasonable player dies because "good" play dies. any seed you can eventually beat by retrying and taking bad cards/playing cards in bad orders until one of the reshuffles or card rewards lines up perfectly to get you past your hump is functionally problematic in all the ways that a truly unbeatable seed would be theoretically problematic. playing spire at a high level requires accepting that you run into those sorts of seeds sometimes.