Fed Up!

Endbringer
Endbringer Posts: 149 Tile Toppler
in MtGPQ General Discussion

Stop "purposely" placing all of my support gems right next to each other when cast so they can be matched and have all of their shields destroyed. Stop having Avaracious Dragon and Koth's first ability specifically seek out to destroy my support gems 9 times out of 10 even when there are plenty of other gems of my colors on the board without support shields. Stop organizing the manner in which gem cascades happen to specifically create match after match, selectively dropping 3 to 5 or more gems of the same AI "chosen" color, producing free turns while intentionally matching my support gems, and ensuring the fulfillment of mana for specific cards. (That is not random chance at the rate it happens so perfectly every match, it's predetermined cheating).

«1

Comments

  • Gunmix25
    Gunmix25 Posts: 1,442 Chairperson of the Boards

    Koth had for years been programmed to swap four matches you need or any match that could be made if one of your supports was connected. He is the only one that consistently did this to my knowledge. It's frustrating. As for avaricious dragon. Most often the support gems we generate match our colors. The odds of him hitting them are rather high. Whenever I play against red I always make sure I have removal of some kind on hand to prevent this kind of thing. No less different than building for paper. If you have an idea what you are facing, prepare for it. If you don't, and try to power through it, it could get ugly fast as you already know.

    Just prepare and you'll defeat him far more than not. You got this, man. Good luck

  • bk1234
    bk1234 Posts: 2,924 Chairperson of the Boards

    RNG doesn’t purposely do anything. The “R” stands for “random”.

    That being said, there are a number of great strategies you can use when facing Koth decks that will pretty much assure you don’t have these issues.

    The main thing with Koth is you need to loyalty deny him. This is fairly simple to do with a well balanced deck, but sometimes you might have to sideboard when you pull him as an opponent. Had you been adequately doing this, he wouldn’t have been popping hour supports with his ability.

    The second thing is Koth is built to run a creature heavy deck. This means when you are facing him, you need to be packing a heck of a lot of removal.

    Now since he’s built for creatures and Av Dragon drives loyalty which helps push out more creatures, it’s almost always an auto include in most basic, Koth decks. Side boarding for the two main components of what makes Koth successful in the first place probably would have saved your support.

    All opponents are not created equal. There is not one solution for everything. That’s why paper mtg has sideboards and why we can do it as well.

  • Endbringer
    Endbringer Posts: 149 Tile Toppler

    I highly disagree with "Random". I know it's programmed to seek and destroy as well as generate gem matches. Have you never seen a single gem conversion from a single land support of the AI make a match and watch 2 entire rows of a single color drop then 3 blue and then 3 blue and then 3 black then 2 red to connect with another red and then 2 green to connect with two more green to drop one more green that is left for the AI to make a match with and once it's done your opponent has destroyed all 3 shields on one of your supports and several shields on your other support and has a free turn left? I see similar situations every single day. Sometimes worse. I've watched entire top rows of a single color drop in after making a landfall. The odds of that are way to crazy to happen as often as it does. Also Koth is a total cheese pw for complete noobs in my opinion, only for those who don't really have any cards to create a strategic deck, just relying on blowing the board out with the equivalent of 3 Black Lotus' every turn if it were paper magic, to drop the biggest creatures they can. It's like dumb hulk smash. No skill needed.

  • Tremayne
    Tremayne Posts: 1,673 Chairperson of the Boards

    @Endbringer - I totally get your frustration - I believe my worst experience is Greg’s record cascade of 14 matches in one turn, not with Koth though.

    I have seen similar things which defy reason, but apparently not statistics. Sadly, it is nigh impossible to gather statistical evidence, so I do not know what you should do.

    However, I can tell you that my recent match with Koth did not show any signs of favouritism. I used Koth’s first numerous times and not once did I get a follow up match. So Greg’s good luck in your match was evened out by my bad luck. 🤪

  • jtwood
    jtwood Posts: 1,285 Chairperson of the Boards

    @Volrak said:

    @Endbringer said:
    The odds of that are way to crazy to happen as often as it does.

    That assertion may or may not be wrong, but an assertion is all it is. You haven't given evidence for it; you've given some examples of outcomes which can and will occur whether it's random or by design.

    Testing randomness isn't easy. In some ways it's the opposite of noticing things after they happen, which is the usual way most people form beliefs of non-randomness. But if you're really interested in gathering the evidence necessary to test your belief, let me know and I'll happily help you with that. If actual evidence showed there was a bug, I'd love to write the bug report for you and be the first to present it to Oktagon.

    Yeah... I've come to the sneaking suspicion that the game generates three+ consecutive colors on replacement gems more than it should, but holy hell is that so hard to prove. I'd have to record so many games, and break down so many individual matches, and account for the fact that other gem changers could be involved...

    So while I may think the game has an issue (one that benefits both the player and AI), I'm not going to complain about it since I don't have the energy to do the work to first validate my suspicion. It's a critical part of the complaint to be able to back it up with evidence.

  • bk1234
    bk1234 Posts: 2,924 Chairperson of the Boards

    @jtwood said:

    @Volrak said:

    @Endbringer said:
    The odds of that are way to crazy to happen as often as it does.

    That assertion may or may not be wrong, but an assertion is all it is. You haven't given evidence for it; you've given some examples of outcomes which can and will occur whether it's random or by design.

    Testing randomness isn't easy. In some ways it's the opposite of noticing things after they happen, which is the usual way most people form beliefs of non-randomness. But if you're really interested in gathering the evidence necessary to test your belief, let me know and I'll happily help you with that. If actual evidence showed there was a bug, I'd love to write the bug report for you and be the first to present it to Oktagon.

    Yeah... I've come to the sneaking suspicion that the game generates three+ consecutive colors on replacement gems more than it should, but holy hell is that so hard to prove. I'd have to record so many games, and break down so many individual matches, and account for the fact that other gem changers could be involved...

    So while I may think the game has an issue (one that benefits both the player and AI), I'm not going to complain about it since I don't have the energy to do the work to first validate my suspicion. It's a critical part of the complaint to be able to back it up with evidence.

    Are we operating on the principle that this only happens to the AI?

    It does not.

    I had a spectacular turn 1 cascade in HoD, the week before last that filled my entire very lucky random opening hand of Mirror March, Goggles, HUF. I play this deck every day in TG and have at least a turn 2 win probably 5/7 days with Aj1 who doesn’t have very high mana gains so I’m depending on RNGesus to make some magic happen for an early show.

    Is it random, or does RNGesus go easier on me because I’m a girl? Discuss.

  • Aeroplane
    Aeroplane Posts: 314 Mover and Shaker

    I won't include the epic cascade . If you're quick enough to see your best move next turn before Greg moves it will match your colors if he has no moves but it'll also match a starting set that I think is weird but sky falls to screw your best move, too. Keep an eye out for it , but it is no big deal as Greg needs all the help it can get anyways.

  • bk1234
    bk1234 Posts: 2,924 Chairperson of the Boards

    @Aeroplane said:
    but it is no big deal as Greg needs all the help it can get anyways.

    Fact.

  • Zzyzzx
    Zzyzzx Posts: 251 Mover and Shaker

    We miss you @Aeroplane

  • bk1234
    bk1234 Posts: 2,924 Chairperson of the Boards
    Zzyzzx said:

    We miss you @Aeroplane

    😢
  • Aeroplane
    Aeroplane Posts: 314 Mover and Shaker
    Zzyzzx said:

    We miss you @Aeroplane

    Just finished all the flooring upstairs. Still a ways to go with the trim, paneling some walls, tiling the bathroom...etc And this is after working full time building house on the water. Yawn.... The virus hasn't shut our 3-man crew down working in a small community on Vancouver Island. Stay strong DimMak!
  • Endbringer
    Endbringer Posts: 149 Tile Toppler
    bken1234 said:

    @jtwood said:

    @Volrak said:

    @Endbringer said:
    The odds of that are way to crazy to happen as often as it does.

    That assertion may or may not be wrong, but an assertion is all it is. You haven't given evidence for it; you've given some examples of outcomes which can and will occur whether it's random or by design.

    Testing randomness isn't easy. In some ways it's the opposite of noticing things after they happen, which is the usual way most people form beliefs of non-randomness. But if you're really interested in gathering the evidence necessary to test your belief, let me know and I'll happily help you with that. If actual evidence showed there was a bug, I'd love to write the bug report for you and be the first to present it to Oktagon.

    Yeah... I've come to the sneaking suspicion that the game generates three+ consecutive colors on replacement gems more than it should, but holy hell is that so hard to prove. I'd have to record so many games, and break down so many individual matches, and account for the fact that other gem changers could be involved...

    So while I may think the game has an issue (one that benefits both the player and AI), I'm not going to complain about it since I don't have the energy to do the work to first validate my suspicion. It's a critical part of the complaint to be able to back it up with evidence.

    Are we operating on the principle that this only happens to the AI?

    It does not.

    I had a spectacular turn 1 cascade in HoD, the week before last that filled my entire very lucky random opening hand of Mirror March, Goggles, HUF. I play this deck every day in TG and have at least a turn 2 win probably 5/7 days with Aj1 who doesn’t have very high mana gains so I’m depending on RNGesus to make some magic happen for an early show.

    Is it random, or does RNGesus go easier on me because I’m a girl? Discuss.

    Everyone knows the game is rigged. It's very obvious. It doesn't matter if it happens for both the player and GREG; it's supposed to be entirely random on both ends and it's clearly not. You wouldn't mind if your fate was in someone elses hands, if your fate was to lose?? It's not hard at all to see the same repetition of results from the AI happening consistently. You think an entire row of the same color dropping is random?
  • madwren
    madwren Posts: 2,259 Chairperson of the Boards
    jtwood said:

    It's a critical part of the complaint to be able to back it up with evidence.


    We should sticky that. 

    We should also sticky stuff like, "by definition, random includes the potential occurrence of all possible combinations", or "a perfectly random result will have long streaks of seemingly non-random behavior" or "people often  think streaks in random sequential events are rare and mistakenly interpret streaks as proof of non-randomness".


  • Bubbles_CS
    Bubbles_CS Posts: 332 Mover and Shaker
    madwren said:
    jtwood said:

    It's a critical part of the complaint to be able to back it up with evidence.


    We should sticky that. 

    We should also sticky stuff like, "by definition, random includes the potential occurrence of all possible combinations", or "a perfectly random result will have long streaks of seemingly non-random behavior" or "people often  think streaks in random sequential events are rare and mistakenly interpret streaks as proof of non-randomness".


    New forum rule: No complaints about randomness without evidence published in a peer-reviewed journal!
  • Tremayne
    Tremayne Posts: 1,673 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited September 2020
    New MTGPQ rule - no use of randomness in game, unless proof of correctly implemented randomness is published for public peer review.
  • Julie71
    Julie71 MTGPQ Mod Posts: 707 Critical Contributor
    You just have to remember one thing Greg is stupid. He can't cheat he's a computer, each pw has his/her own strength and weaknesses it's our job to overcome whatever is thrown at us. I'm much more concerned with bugs that effect our game play.  We can definitely deal with the ai. :)
  • FindingHeart8
    FindingHeart8 Posts: 2,731 Chairperson of the Boards
    Tremayne said:
    New MTGPQ - no use of randomness in game, unless proof of correctly implemented randomness is published for public peer review.
    As someone who had to edit peer-reviewed journals, I can tell you there's many who are still a ways off from unbiased ;)
  • FindingHeart8
    FindingHeart8 Posts: 2,731 Chairperson of the Boards
    I don't think Greg (as Koth) controls what gems his first ability hits.

    But my only question in the randomness factor is whether or not Greg makes matches knowing what gems will fall after.

    I know there's been a lot of speculation and arguments on this in the past.  I'm not making a claim for or against it, but it would be interesting to know *how* Greg chooses what match to make, if there are multiple options available with similar perceived board-state outcomes.
  • Tremayne
    Tremayne Posts: 1,673 Chairperson of the Boards
    FindingHeart8 said:
    Tremayne said:
    New MTGPQ - no use of randomness in game, unless proof of correctly implemented randomness is published for public peer review.
    As someone who had to edit peer-reviewed journals, I can tell you there's many who are still a ways off from unbiased ;)
    Many implementations of randomness are unbiased or many peer reviewers are unbiased? 🤪

Categories