Final review of the game

FindingHeart8

starfall said:

Stormcrow said:

starfall said:

The more recent system in practice makes Greg an easier opponent than the older system did, and experienced players (one might argue, the majority of players?) do not want an easy opponent.

I feel like this is only true for Nicol Bolas 1, Elspeth, and maaaybe Koth or Vraska 1 in certain matchups. Definitely isn't the case for, to name a few examples, Ob Nix, Karn, Saheeli, any version of Tezzeret, or Brokhan.

Again, maybe my lack of fear of Greg is largely a function of how easy the game is now. BSZ is so ridiculous that it's easy to find the answer for a single card threat that Greg drops on the board, like Karn's ult, Tezz2's ult, Tezz3's ult, Ob's ult, and, probably Saheeli, as she's only going to be running multiple types of vehicles in EO or FIRF (aside: I really, really, REALLY hate the way I can't play Parhelion II with her!!!). Even BTB is ridiculous enough to let you keep the board clear of supports and creatures at all times. In any sane world BTB would be too powerful for MTGPQ

Brokhan, I'll give you. That can be a nasty one. Still, even if Greg happens to get enough loyalty for his ult, there's only a 33% chance he'll use it, isn't there, because he might randomly pick another ability to use. In practice, I don't think new Greg uses his ult much more than old Greg did. At least with old Greg, when he got an enormous cascade (and we all know how often that happens!), he'd then proceed to use his ult 100% of the time.


Pictured: Old Greg.

I'm ollllld Greeeeeeeg.

Volrak

starfall said:

Randomness has taken tactical depth away from the game, and I can give you a concrete example of it; you used to be able to predict with (almost) certainly what move Greg would take on the gemboard, and that allowed you to play one move ahead...

Predicting specific gem moves is still sometimes possible now, but sometimes it's not clear-cut.  There was a period some time ago when Greg avoided taking match 5s, and I admit it was fun to try to set those up for yourself in your next turn.  So I agree it's a fair example of randomness in general not always adding tactical depth (and I think that happens when the number of possible random outcomes is too many to consider all of them).

Mburn7

Volrak said:

starfall said:

Randomness has taken tactical depth away from the game, and I can give you a concrete example of it; you used to be able to predict with (almost) certainly what move Greg would take on the gemboard, and that allowed you to play one move ahead...

Predicting specific gem moves is still sometimes possible now, but sometimes it's not clear-cut.  There was a period some time ago when Greg avoided taking match 5s, and I admit it was fun to try to set those up for yourself in your next turn.  So I agree it's a fair example of randomness in general not always adding tactical depth (and I think that happens when the number of possible random outcomes is too many to consider all of them).

Sorry to restart this, but I have just seen 3 consecutive games where Greg ignored an on-color match for either an off-color or loyalty match that immediately caused a massive cascade from offscreen.

I'm talking a turn 1 Parhelion off of a loyalty match massive.

@Volrak I remember at some point in the past you did a big investigation into gemfall randomness, is it possible that the programming has changed since then?  I find it really hard to believe that this keeps happening due to luck, since it only seems to happen in events where Greg is supposed to be more difficult. (although I will admit it is certainly possible)

Tremayne

@Mburn7 - I don’t want to stump on Volrak’s impressive work but I have to say that to me his work seems to be purely anecdotal, no matter how thorough it is done (unless he has a developer access that I’m not aware of).

I have questioned the random generator numerous times, but I have never been able to come up with anything conclusive. Typically, my observations have been disregarded as “observation biased”.

As long as the devs. do not own up and explain or provide proof of their method for generating randomness, all the player base can do is hope the devs have not made a mistake in their code. 

Any perceived irregularities have been explained as statistical abnormalities within the reasonable realm of possibilities.

Lately, someone described a scenario with a 1/250000 chance (if I recall correctly) and the explanation was that the user probably didn’t register his booster pack drops correctly.

I have learned that you shall not question the random generator in MTGPQ.

I wish you good luck in your attempt.

Volrak

Mburn7 said:

@Volrak I remember at some point in the past you did a big investigation into gemfall randomness, is it possible that the programming has changed since then?  I find it really hard to believe that this keeps happening due to luck

It was a relatively small investigation.  The link is still in my sig, but what we found was that players could consistently get far more cascades than the AI, if that's their goal, and there seemed to be significantly different cascade outcomes for players with different playing styles.

Of course the game code can change at any time.  If it does change in any significant way, I'd expect many people would notice it, and we'd get a clear and persistent spike above the background hum of strange observations caused by randomness.

Volrak

Tremayne said:

@Mburn7 - I don’t want to stump on Volrak’s impressive work but I have to say that to me his work seems to be purely anecdotal, no matter how thorough it is done (unless he has a developer access that I’m not aware of).

I have questioned the random generator numerous times, but I have never been able to come up with anything conclusive. Typically, my observations have been disregarded as “observation biased”.

As long as the devs. do not own up and explain or provide proof of their method for generating randomness, all the player base can do is hope the devs have not made a mistake in their code. 

Any perceived irregularities have been explained as statistical abnormalities within the reasonable realm of possibilities.

Lately, someone described a scenario with a 1/250000 chance (if I recall correctly) and the explanation was that the user probably didn’t register his booster pack drops correctly.

I have learned that you shall not question the random generator in MTGPQ.

I wish you good luck in your attempt.

I tend to give statistical input (calculations over a population), not anecdotal (a story about a single occurence).  Statistics are a step up from anectodes in terms of grasping the big picture view (which is why they were invented).  But statistics aren't 100% conclusive either.  For that, as you say, you'd need to take a further step up, to direct analysis of the code.  I certainly don't have any special access in that regard.

You might have a different opinion, and that's fine, but in my view, the fact that individual anecdotes of anything explainable by chance can never be conclusive is no reason to disregard them out of hand, or to avoid raising questions around them.

My view is that everyone has to weigh up the factors and decide what they think for themselves.  A statistical explanation sheds light on further factors which may have been hidden otherwise.  Again, you might disagree, but I see everyone as being completely free to use that information to any degree they see fit when forming their own opinions.