It doesn't really matter how good your deck is

MaxMagic420

Rootbreaker wrote:

Omega Red wrote:

Anything that reduces randomness and increases control and strategy is good for the game.

Perhaps you'd like to play chess then.

Randomness keeps games from all feeling the same. It is not some evil to be exorcised.

Increased randomness doesn't mean reduced strategy. They are not opposite ends of a scale. Increased randomness means you encounter more situations, so you have to think about how to solve them, whether that's during the game, or before it, during deckbuilding.

But this is supposed to be a game based on strategy! If the random element wasn't the determining factor so much of the time, if the rng worked properly like many other games have managed to do, this thread wouldn't exist to begin with. I agree totally that anything that reduces randomness and emphasizes strategy is only positive and beneficial to the game environment.
Seriously, wouldn't it be an improvement if my demolish actually targeted a support I chose rather than a support the rng chooses? And how often does that demolish take out a clue or a Shivan reef over a hixus, or a starfield of nyx? Id say the vast majority of the time and I'm sure my experience isn't unique, we've all desperately waited for that demolish or root out just to watch it smash a veteran's sidearm instead of the suppression bonds that are losing you the game.

Ohboy

MaxMagic420 wrote:

Rootbreaker wrote:

Omega Red wrote:

Anything that reduces randomness and increases control and strategy is good for the game.

Perhaps you'd like to play chess then.

Randomness keeps games from all feeling the same. It is not some evil to be exorcised.

Increased randomness doesn't mean reduced strategy. They are not opposite ends of a scale. Increased randomness means you encounter more situations, so you have to think about how to solve them, whether that's during the game, or before it, during deckbuilding.

But this is supposed to be a game based on strategy! If the random element wasn't the determining factor so much of the time, if the rng worked properly like many other games have managed to do, this thread wouldn't exist to begin with. I agree totally that anything that reduces randomness and emphasizes strategy is only positive and beneficial to the game environment.
Seriously, wouldn't it be an improvement if my demolish actually targeted a support I chose rather than a support the rng chooses? And how often does that demolish take out a clue or a Shivan reef over a hixus, or a starfield of nyx? Id say the vast majority of the time and I'm sure my experience isn't unique, we've all desperately waited for that demolish or root out just to watch it smash a veteran's sidearm instead of the suppression bonds that are losing you the game.

Sure that would be great. Just like breaker of armies would be great if it only cost 4.

You're asking for a low cost spell to destroy a target support that can cost a lot to cast. And potentially cascade to return you the cost of the spell.

Rootbreaker

MaxMagic420 wrote:

Rootbreaker wrote:

Omega Red wrote:

Anything that reduces randomness and increases control and strategy is good for the game.

Perhaps you'd like to play chess then.

Randomness keeps games from all feeling the same. It is not some evil to be exorcised.

Increased randomness doesn't mean reduced strategy. They are not opposite ends of a scale. Increased randomness means you encounter more situations, so you have to think about how to solve them, whether that's during the game, or before it, during deckbuilding.

But this is supposed to be a game based on strategy! If the random element wasn't the determining factor so much of the time, if the rng worked properly like many other games have managed to do, this thread wouldn't exist to begin with. I agree totally that anything that reduces randomness and emphasizes strategy is only positive and beneficial to the game environment.
Seriously, wouldn't it be an improvement if my demolish actually targeted a support I chose rather than a support the rng chooses? And how often does that demolish take out a clue or a Shivan reef over a hixus, or a starfield of nyx? Id say the vast majority of the time and I'm sure my experience isn't unique, we've all desperately waited for that demolish or root out just to watch it smash a veteran's sidearm instead of the suppression bonds that are losing you the game.

The random element ISN'T a determining factor very much. I played 21 games in the event yesterday. I won 20 with full objectives, and the 21st one I lost because of an error I made (I momentarily forgot that scourge wolf wouldn't be bounced by my thing in the ice).

People in almost every game with RNG complain about how it doesn't work properly, but it's always perception bias. See years of complaints about the MTGO shuffler.

Demolish would certainly be more powerful if it hit a targeted support for the same cost, but I'd rather have the low cost demolish we have now than a targeted version that cost more. It's very efficient at what it does even randomly targeted.

What does the UI look like for this version of targeted demolish that you've imagined anyway? If you just clicked the grid, you'd have to first determine which support was which before you cast demolish every time. Maybe you have a UI that lets you scroll through each support your opponent has on the field, but that seems like a lot of development work for a card which works just fine now with its random targeted version.

MaxMagic420

Demolish was just an example. The strategy element is what needs to be emphasized. That's all I'm saying. Anything that adds a layer of strategy is good for this game. If it wasn't for the strategic element and magic branding, it would just be another cookie cutter f2p gem matching game you'd probably only play while pooping. Overall I think the game was translated from paper to this format very effectively and very brilliantly in some cases. The game is still evolving into something better. It's just certain (cough, rng, cough) aspects of the game still need some fine tuning. I think the devs are perfectly capable of making any necessary changes. We like some, hate others, but I tend to think in the end it'll balance out. I play a lot of world of tanks, been playing almost a year, and never once has the rng selected the same map three times in a row, or even twice in a row. Simply never happens. Ask most tankers and they might say they see some maps more often than others, but never consecutively. That game has been around a while, and they've tweaked and tuned their rng to provide a good random selection of maps and opponents. Battles are fairly balanced in terms of skill level and firepower and feel just right in that regard. Given time I believe this game will eventually reach that level. We're the ones bringing up these issues now, so six or seven years from now people playing this game will have the intended experience. It's constructive. Besides, I love this game. I'll play until they shut the servers down or my fingers lock up into gnarled gargoyle claws.

Omega Red

Hey, remember those creature removals I needed so much the other day? I found them! They were waiting for me at Terrors on the shadows! Look!




But wait, There's more!








Sorry for the image heavy post.

Tilikum

You ever reach into the dryer and pull out 5 socks and none of them match?
It's like that.

MaxMagic420

Good analogy, it is kind of like that. Those pictures illustrate perfectly the issue at hand. It isn't supposed to actually BE random, it's supposed to FEEL random. Drawing three or four of the same card consistently regardless of any changing variables doesn't feel random at all. It feels like a poor shuffle, because that's what it is. It's an algorithm that just needs some adjustment. Somebody in another forum suggested that most applications that utilize a RNG insert a simple line of code that essentially tells the RNG "available choices include all options EXCEPT the last option chosen." This prevents most, but not all of the duplication and produces a more realistic feeling of randomness. I'm not a programmer, but even as a layman that makes a lot of sense to me.

Pqmtg-

MaxMagic420 wrote:

Good analogy, it is kind of like that. Those pictures illustrate perfectly the issue at hand. It isn't supposed to actually BE random, it's supposed to FEEL random. Drawing three or four of the same card consistently regardless of any changing variables doesn't feel random at all. It feels like a poor shuffle, because that's what it is. It's an algorithm that just needs some adjustment. Somebody in another forum suggested that most applications that utilize a RNG insert a simple line of code that essentially tells the RNG "available choices include all options EXCEPT the last option chosen." This prevents most, but not all of the duplication and produces a more realistic feeling of randomness. I'm not a programmer, but even as a layman that makes a lot of sense to me.

LOL. That's not random at all.

See the Apple shuffle problem. People don't know what random is. I'm sorry to tell you, it's supposed to "be" random. That's exactly how top decking cards work.

wink

Pqmtg- wrote:

MaxMagic420 wrote:

Good analogy, it is kind of like that. Those pictures illustrate perfectly the issue at hand. It isn't supposed to actually BE random, it's supposed to FEEL random. Drawing three or four of the same card consistently regardless of any changing variables doesn't feel random at all. It feels like a poor shuffle, because that's what it is. It's an algorithm that just needs some adjustment. Somebody in another forum suggested that most applications that utilize a RNG insert a simple line of code that essentially tells the RNG "available choices include all options EXCEPT the last option chosen." This prevents most, but not all of the duplication and produces a more realistic feeling of randomness. I'm not a programmer, but even as a layman that makes a lot of sense to me.

LOL. That's not random at all.

See the Apple shuffle problem. People don't know what random is. I'm sorry to tell you, it's supposed to "be" random. That's exactly how top decking cards work.

Well, yeah, but Apple went ahead and "fixed" the random shuffle algorithm to make it "feel" more random. They didn't just go around saying "People don't know what random is."

Pqmtg-

wink wrote:

Pqmtg- wrote:

MaxMagic420 wrote:

Good analogy, it is kind of like that. Those pictures illustrate perfectly the issue at hand. It isn't supposed to actually BE random, it's supposed to FEEL random. Drawing three or four of the same card consistently regardless of any changing variables doesn't feel random at all. It feels like a poor shuffle, because that's what it is. It's an algorithm that just needs some adjustment. Somebody in another forum suggested that most applications that utilize a RNG insert a simple line of code that essentially tells the RNG "available choices include all options EXCEPT the last option chosen." This prevents most, but not all of the duplication and produces a more realistic feeling of randomness. I'm not a programmer, but even as a layman that makes a lot of sense to me.

LOL. That's not random at all.

See the Apple shuffle problem. People don't know what random is. I'm sorry to tell you, it's supposed to "be" random. That's exactly how top decking cards work.

Well, yeah, but Apple went ahead and "fixed" the random shuffle algorithm to make it "feel" more random. They didn't just go around saying "People don't know what random is."

Sure they did. Then they eventually pandered to the ignorant public.

Thankfully, mtg never had the tinykitty rule that said you can cycle the last card you drew if it's a duplicate. Imagine how stupid the guy requesting it would look.

wink

Pqmtg- wrote:

wink wrote:

Pqmtg- wrote:

MaxMagic420 wrote:

Good analogy, it is kind of like that. Those pictures illustrate perfectly the issue at hand. It isn't supposed to actually BE random, it's supposed to FEEL random. Drawing three or four of the same card consistently regardless of any changing variables doesn't feel random at all. It feels like a poor shuffle, because that's what it is. It's an algorithm that just needs some adjustment. Somebody in another forum suggested that most applications that utilize a RNG insert a simple line of code that essentially tells the RNG "available choices include all options EXCEPT the last option chosen." This prevents most, but not all of the duplication and produces a more realistic feeling of randomness. I'm not a programmer, but even as a layman that makes a lot of sense to me.

LOL. That's not random at all.

See the Apple shuffle problem. People don't know what random is. I'm sorry to tell you, it's supposed to "be" random. That's exactly how top decking cards work.

Well, yeah, but Apple went ahead and "fixed" the random shuffle algorithm to make it "feel" more random. They didn't just go around saying "People don't know what random is."

Sure they did. Then they eventually pandered to the ignorant public.

Thankfully, mtg never had the tinykitty rule that said you can cycle the last card you drew if it's a duplicate. Imagine how stupid the guy requesting it would look.

While mtg didn't make the rule you just cited, they did introduce the mulligan rule, which is also anti-random. Just because it's a card game doesn't mean that the random parts need to be maximally random. (Draw poker is less random than stud poker, for example.)

You can't get true randomness on a computer anyway--you have to settle for pseudo-random. If you're already settling for a pseudo-random algorithm, who's to say you shouldn't code it to make it "feel" more random. The mulligan rule is precedent that shows that less random can be more fun.

Pqmtg-

wink wrote:

While mtg didn't make the rule you just cited, they did introduce the mulligan rule, which is also anti-random. Just because it's a card game doesn't mean that the random parts need to be maximally random. (Draw poker is less random than stud poker, for example.)

You can't get true randomness on a computer anyway--you have to settle for pseudo-random. If you're already settling for a pseudo-random algorithm, who's to say you shouldn't code it to make it "feel" more random. The mulligan rule is precedent that shows that less random can be more fun.

Mulligan is still random though. You don't get to choose which cards you want to keep and cycle the rest. It's a big difference.

Mulligans reduce variance, not randomness. Don't even get me started on your nonsensical statement of stud Vs draw games in poker.


Also, I'm tired of people who have no idea what pseudo random means talking about it as if they know the criteria for identifying it's non randomness.

Pseudo random numbers give perfectly acceptable random results for our purposes here with a small number set and unknown seed.

Fiddler

Pqmtg- wrote:

wink wrote:

You can't get true randomness on a computer anyway--you have to settle for pseudo-random.

Pseudo random numbers give perfectly acceptable random results for our purposes here with a small number set and unknown seed.

Can't argue with that. I work in programming for a lottery. This pseudo random stuff is funny. The basic rule of thumb is that while computers cannot produce "true random" numbers, they can certainly produce numbers that are "random enough" for your purposes.

Omega Red

The issue of random numbers and computers is not the function itself that returns a random number within the context of a programming language, but how you use that number in the algorithm to emulate any given real-world random event. You want to emulate a flip coin? Easy. You want to emulate weather faithfully? Good luck with that! The more variables the event has, the harder it is to emulate. Given how online gaming has been a thing for well over a decade now I would dare to guess that modern algorithms are good enough to emulate card shuffle.

Now, going back to the original topic I think that all that's needed to change is, as Max proposed, to have players decide how many copies of each card do you want in your deck as opposed to just equally creating four copies of each. The issue is not whether the game draws too many repeats, but how each repeat of a card you don't need is blocking a potential draw of a card you actually need.

Pqmtg-

Omega Red wrote:

The issue of random numbers and computers is not the function itself that returns a random number within the context of a programming language, but how you use that number in the algorithm to emulate any given real-world random event. You want to emulate a flip coin? Easy. You want to emulate weather faithfully? Good luck with that! The more variables the event has, the harder it is to emulate. Given how online gaming has been a thing for well over a decade now I would dare to guess that modern algorithms are good enough to emulate card shuffle.

Now, going back to the original topic I think that all that's needed to change is, as Max proposed, to have players decide how many copies of each card do you want in your deck as opposed to just equally creating four copies of each. The issue is not whether the game draws too many repeats, but how each repeat of a card you don't need is blocking a potential draw of a card you actually need.

My suggestion is to go further and make a full 40 card deck. That will solve the dupe mythic complaints for a while.

Omega Red

Pqmtg- wrote:

Omega Red wrote:

The issue of random numbers and computers is not the function itself that returns a random number within the context of a programming language, but how you use that number in the algorithm to emulate any given real-world random event. You want to emulate a flip coin? Easy. You want to emulate weather faithfully? Good luck with that! The more variables the event has, the harder it is to emulate. Given how online gaming has been a thing for well over a decade now I would dare to guess that modern algorithms are good enough to emulate card shuffle.

Now, going back to the original topic I think that all that's needed to change is, as Max proposed, to have players decide how many copies of each card do you want in your deck as opposed to just equally creating four copies of each. The issue is not whether the game draws too many repeats, but how each repeat of a card you don't need is blocking a potential draw of a card you actually need.

My suggestion is to go further and make a full 40 card deck. That will solve the dupe mythic complaints for a while.

My guess is that eventually the game will evolve into that, but it's still too early to implement for most of players.

Fiddler

The only way you could 'weight' your deck with cards would be if there was actually a deck with a fixed number of cards held in memory. I do not think that is the case as in story mode I am certain I have gone through marathon sessions where I played/discarded hundreds of cards. Usually when working to meet some secondary quest.

So they would have to add the entire concept of a deck to the game. That would break a lot of things.

Pqmtg-

Fiddler wrote:

The only way you could 'weight' your deck with cards would be if there was actually a deck with a fixed number of cards held in memory. I do not think that is the case as in story mode I am certain I have gone through marathon sessions where I played/discarded hundreds of cards. Usually when working to meet some secondary quest.

So they would have to add the entire concept of a deck to the game. That would break a lot of things.

There is. When you run out of cards, your graveyard is just reshuffled into the bottom of your library. It would still be weighted.

Volrak

Yes, there is already a library/deck.

Pqmtg- wrote:

When you run out of cards, your graveyard is just reshuffled into the bottom of your library.

No, the graveyard stays where it is. 40 fresh cards are added to the library as needed. But no reason it couldn't still be weighted as you say.

Building a full deck rather than 4 of each card is an interesting idea. I guess it would advantage people with larger collections, and people who could be bothered. (I'd assume the current method of 4x10 would remain the default for anyone who didn't want more control, to avoid forcing complexity on the entire player base).

Pqmtg-

Volrak wrote:

Yes, there is already a library/deck.

Pqmtg- wrote:

When you run out of cards, your graveyard is just reshuffled into the bottom of your library.

No, the graveyard stays where it is. 40 fresh cards are added to the library as needed. But no reason it couldn't still be weighted as you say.

Building a full deck rather than 4 of each card is an interesting idea. I guess it would advantage people with larger collections, and people who could be bothered. (I'd assume the current method of 4x10 would remain the default for anyone who didn't want more control, to avoid forcing complexity on the entire player base).

I would love for there to be different formats like this.

Especially drafts and sealed decks. It keeps things exciting without the devs having to actively add new content, and would boost sales of packs(and hopefully allow the cost of packs to be lowered)

Block tournaments, pauper and all that good jazz. Would certainly be superior to having the broken tier system we have now.