Ohboy said: As a programmer, you obviously know the explanation can be as simple as a tweak in priority leading to unexpected results.
shteev said: Ohboy said: As a programmer, you obviously know the explanation can be as simple as a tweak in priority leading to unexpected results. If you change code, you at least test to see if it does what you think it does. You don't just change a bunch of lines of code and send it out into the world hoping that it probably works.I mean, I guess Hibernum *might* be incompetent enough to do that. But why take the risk? If you haven't got time to test the new code, why not just leave it as it is?
Steeme said: While I'm enjoying the fact that my supports last more than a turn or two, it feels dirty. The AI not taking the swap to destroy my Desert's Hold and instead taking a 3-swap of it's secondary color literally feels like it is intentionally "going easy" on me to let me win.
While I'm enjoying the fact that my supports last more than a turn or two, it feels dirty. The AI not taking the swap to destroy my Desert's Hold and instead taking a 3-swap of it's secondary color literally feels like it is intentionally "going easy" on me to let me win.
shteev said: Ohboy said: As a programmer, you obviously know the explanation can be as simple as a tweak in priority leading to unexpected results. I don't buy it. Hibernum are swamped with work as it is. They're having to take on new staff just to cope with booster crafting. Why would they tinker with code which has the opportunity to lead to unexpected results? As a non-programmer, I'm sure you can imagine all kinds of outlandish results that might happen because of that; graphical glitches, terminal crashes, bees flying out of your phone, dogs and cats living together....If you change code, you at least test to see if it does what you think it does. You don't just change a bunch of lines of code and send it out into the world hoping that it probably works.I mean, I guess Hibernum *might* be incompetent enough to do that. But why take the risk? If you haven't got time to test the new code, why not just leave it as it is?
Ohboy said: shteev said: Ohboy said: As a programmer, you obviously know the explanation can be as simple as a tweak in priority leading to unexpected results. I don't buy it. Hibernum are swamped with work as it is. They're having to take on new staff just to cope with booster crafting. Why would they tinker with code which has the opportunity to lead to unexpected results? As a non-programmer, I'm sure you can imagine all kinds of outlandish results that might happen because of that; graphical glitches, terminal crashes, bees flying out of your phone, dogs and cats living together....If you change code, you at least test to see if it does what you think it does. You don't just change a bunch of lines of code and send it out into the world hoping that it probably works.I mean, I guess Hibernum *might* be incompetent enough to do that. But why take the risk? If you haven't got time to test the new code, why not just leave it as it is? You spent months trash talking about how they always do exactly this, and now you suddenly don't buy it?
Ohboy said: Before I go to the trouble of digging. Please state for the record that you do not recall constantly complaining about the incompetence of the coding.
I know that the majority of players love to jump on the Dev bashing train, but in reality software companies are usually dealing with a lot of legacy code written decades ago.
We do the same thing over here. A big portion of our base application was written years ago by monkeys. Now we have some really competent people working on it, but stuff you didn't even know existed will break any time you try to modify it.
I liken it to playing "Jenga".
Steeme said: I know that the majority of players love to jump on the Dev bashing train, but in reality software companies are usually dealing with a lot of legacy code written decades ago.We do the same thing over here. A big portion of our base application was written years ago by monkeys. Now we have some really competent people working on it, but stuff you didn't even know existed will break any time you try to modify it.I liken it to playing "Jenga".
shteev said: Ohboy said: Before I go to the trouble of digging. Please state for the record that you do not recall constantly complaining about the incompetence of the coding. I hereby state for the record that any earlier statement Ohboy pulls out of the forums will be something I stand by, AND ALSO will be able to fully justify in the context of this thread.Go!
DumasAG said: shteev said: Ohboy said: Before I go to the trouble of digging. Please state for the record that you do not recall constantly complaining about the incompetence of the coding. I hereby state for the record that any earlier statement Ohboy pulls out of the forums will be something I stand by, AND ALSO will be able to fully justify in the context of this thread.Go! That is some next-level politician stuff there
I don't know what the optimal win rate is to keep people hooked on a game.. but I do feel like it is something less than 95%+.
I know in Magic Duels a win rate of around 70% is very strong, although that certainly goes up against the AI. I also know that I am very glad the AI acts quickly in PQ rather than the slow motion moves in Duels.
But anyway, maybe they are worried about making the AI too hard, so they don't prioritize match 5s? Or are they so dense that they think landfalls are better?
babar3355 said: I don't know what the optimal win rate is to keep people hooked on a game.. but I do feel like it is something less than 95%+. I know in Magic Duels a win rate of around 70% is very strong, although that certainly goes up against the AI. I also know that I am very glad the AI acts quickly in PQ rather than the slow motion moves in Duels.But anyway, maybe they are worried about making the AI too hard, so they don't prioritize match 5s? Or are they so dense that they think landfalls are better?
Well, given that JC states with absolute certainty that the AI does not have an advantage over the player in net mana gain, that means they are using some type of in-house simulation to gauge the rate at which the AI progresses in a match.
Perhaps setting the 5-swap as a top priority lead to an imbalance in net mana gain in favour of the AI. I mean, we still get periodic "cascade" threads.
The solution was to set something else as the priority. But that didn't work out as planned.
So now they re-jigged the priorities.
Jenga Jenga, J-J-J-Jenga
shteev said: Doomstat said: I know this is way off base, but what if this was intentional? Of course this was intentional. Someone give me a plausible sequence of events which would indicate this change was unintentional.
Doomstat said: I know this is way off base, but what if this was intentional?
Corn Noodles said: shteev said: Doomstat said: I know this is way off base, but what if this was intentional? Of course this was intentional. Someone give me a plausible sequence of events which would indicate this change was unintentional. Left hand. Right hand. Ignorance.
Steeme said: babar3355 said: I don't know what the optimal win rate is to keep people hooked on a game.. but I do feel like it is something less than 95%+. I know in Magic Duels a win rate of around 70% is very strong, although that certainly goes up against the AI. I also know that I am very glad the AI acts quickly in PQ rather than the slow motion moves in Duels.But anyway, maybe they are worried about making the AI too hard, so they don't prioritize match 5s? Or are they so dense that they think landfalls are better? Well, given that JC states with absolute certainty that the AI does not have an advantage over the player in net mana gain, that means they are using some type of in-house simulation to gauge the rate at which the AI progresses in a match.Perhaps setting the 5-swap as a top priority lead to an imbalance in net mana gain in favour of the AI. I mean, we still get periodic "cascade" threads.The solution was to set something else as the priority. But that didn't work out as planned.So now they re-jigged the priorities.Jenga Jenga, J-J-J-Jenga