Weighted Mythic Draws?

FindingHeart8

--First post in a while, hope you've all been doing well!

Since Strixhaven has been out, I've opened 15 packs from the new sets.  In those packs, I got 1 Masterpiece and 6 mythics.  All of the 6 Mythics were Codie, Vociferex Codex.  1 pack even had 2 Codies in it, back-to-back in the draw.

Not that I'm opposed to extra orbs, but it makes me curious to if there has been a weighted system,  a not equal % opportunity for each mythic if a mythic was to be drawn.  Wondering if there's something to this, or if I just had super weird luck.  Interested in hearing your experience!

Tremayne

@FindingHeart8 - sorry to hear you have such bad luck. I think I have opened 4 or 5 PP and gotten 3 mythic all different and no Codie. I also had a back to back mythic pull. So you are probably an aberration and within statistical probability - not that you can used that for much.

Hope your luck changes for the better soon.

FindingHeart8

Tremayne said:

@FindingHeart8 - sorry to hear you have such bad luck. I think I have opened 4 or 5 PP and gotten 3 mythic all different and no Codie. I also had a back to back mythic pull. So you are probably an aberration and within statistical probability - not that you can used that for much.

Hope your luck changes for the better soon.

Sounds like you're probably right.  It's what I was thinking too, it's just...6 Codies in 15 packs, I wonder what the statistical chances are of that.  Should I be playing the lottery? Lol

Volrak

The chance that 6 consecutive STX mythics opened from normal packs are all the same card is about 1 in 12 million (1/26^5).  So it is quite remarkable.

madwren

A long time ago, I knew someone whose friend in another coalition who dug into the code and shared that there were indeed different weights.  First, there are weights for rarity; then within each rarity tear are different weights. For example, Drowner was weighted at 0.25* the weight of other mythics.  That's the only one I remember; however, this was during the Hibernum days, so I have no way of knowing whether it's still true. 

Mburn7

The first Big Box I opened up (waay back when I first started playing) had 4 copies of the same rare (1 of 4 I already had back then) and 2 copies of the same mythic.

I filed a ticket and was told "them's the breaks"

Sorry you got the doodoo end of RNGThulhu's wrath this time, it happens to everyone

madwren said:

A long time ago, I knew someone whose friend in another coalition who dug into the code and shared that there were indeed different weights.  First, there are weights for rarity; then within each rarity tear are different weights. For example, Drowner was weighted at 0.25* the weight of other mythics.  That's the only one I remember; however, this was during the Hibernum days, so I have no way of knowing whether it's still true. 

I remember that!  There was a lot of argument over whether or not it was true, but I can't remember if we ever got enough data to prove it (for what its worth Hibernium denied that it was a thing)

Volrak

The data was compelling.

I don't recall Hibernum ever denying it (or confirming it).

Nobody knows if it stopped years ago or still occurs.

Avahad

Back before booster crafting was a thing (and if you didn’t hit the convert duplicate button at the top of the screen) you could see that some cards were drawn more than others (it took till booster crafting was a thing for me to get that Plated Crusher). 

FindingHeart8

Volrak said:

The data was compelling.

I don't recall Hibernum ever denying it (or confirming it).

Nobody knows if it stopped years ago or still occurs.

I can't say for certain, but I do remember, usually when Octagon had a new update that caused a series of old glitches to resurface, I'd see glimpses of Hibernum's old layout (for example, the convert duplicate runes to orbs button, etc).  I suspect the core content of Hibernum's programming was just built upon, not significantly altered.

If such was true, could it be possible that the old weighted data you mentioned could still exist in some form now?

Or I am just super lucky/unlucky.  I believed that for the first 4 Codies, but at Codie #5 I began to wonder.

Borg2403

For what it's worth. I just tried my luck and opened 10 Strixhaven boosters
Zero myhics, ZERO RARES, just about 30 something commons and 20 something uncommons with like 10 doubles already to boot. Maybe 1, 2 max cards seemed playable.

Nice waste of 800 crystals.

jtwood

Borg2403 said:

For what it's worth. I just tried my luck and opened 10 Strixhaven boosters
Zero myhics, ZERO RARES, just about 30 something commons and 20 something uncommons with like 10 doubles already to boot. Maybe 1, 2 max cards seemed playable.

Nice waste of 800 crystals.

I'd like to be the first to politely say that you should have bought 2x Premium Packs instead of 10x regular packs.

You would have opened 10 packs for a lower per-pack price and received two, guaranteed rares.

Volrak

FindingHeart8 said:

Or I am just super lucky/unlucky.  I believed that for the first 4 Codies, but at Codie #5 I began to wonder.

Possibility of bug aside, super unlucky is a yes, regardless.  If we hypothesised that 20% of mythics have a 50% reduced chance to drop (a more dramatic effect than the "best guess" for the observations back in 2017), it'd move the odds of someone repeating your feat from 1 in 12 million to 1 in 7 million (assuming Codie was a "normal" mythic), or (if Codie was one of the cards with reduced drop chance) down to 1 in 230 million.

I suspect the core content of Hibernum's programming was just built upon, not significantly altered.

Oktagon absolutely built on Hibernum's product.  They began by delivering more content within the same framework, and over time have made improvements to the framework too, but there's never been any doubt that it's remained the same software base.

(And while we're here.. another area where there was continuity was apparently having a company name which is easy for people to get wrong )

Mburn7 said:

Hibernium

Hibernum

FindingHeart8 said:

Octagon

Oktagon

Mburn7

Volrak said:

(And while we're here.. another area where there was continuity was apparently having a company name which is easy for people to get wrong )

Mburn7 said:

Hibernium

Hibernum

FindingHeart8 said:

Octagon

Oktagon

I swear there was always an i there.

Then again it took me way longer than I should admit to realize Rakdos wasn't spelled Rakados, so what do I know

Ya coulda mentioned that sooner though, I must have been spelling that wrong for years now!

Gunmix25

Volrak said:

The chance that 6 consecutive STX mythics opened from normal packs are all the same card is about 1 in 12 million (1/26^5).  So it is quite remarkable.

Good lord, I'm afraid to ask the statistical probability of the worse set draw I've ever experienced. The set after IXN released the Timestream navigator mythic. I pulled one other mythic then I pulled Timestream 11 times in a row in various premium packs, packs and event packs that followed before ever pulling a different mythic. Was not a happy camper at the time. The bad luck was insane. 

Narcoticsagent

I have always wished there was a way to tell how improbable a particular draw was. Some examples of mine being.

18 heart piercer manticores, a rare, while pulling no more than 11 of any other card in the set.

Opening 5 of the same uncommon in the same 5 card pack.

Opening only mythics in the 120 jewel strixhaven pack and having 6 of them be dupes out of 8 pulls

jtwood

critman said:

Volrak said:

Oktagon absolutely built on Hibernum's product.  They began by delivering more content within the same framework, and over time have made improvements to the framework too, but there's never been any doubt that it's remained the same software base.

Yeah but would Oktagon even remember to use bits of Hibernum's code that they don't absolutely need to? We know for a fact that Hibernum included some code to stop the AI targeting it's own creatures with destruction spells, all Oktagon have to do is remember to set a flag, but they can never be bothered to...

What's the complaint here? That the AI destroys its own creatures incorrectly?

madwren

jtwood said:

critman said:

Volrak said:

Oktagon absolutely built on Hibernum's product.  They began by delivering more content within the same framework, and over time have made improvements to the framework too, but there's never been any doubt that it's remained the same software base.

Yeah but would Oktagon even remember to use bits of Hibernum's code that they don't absolutely need to? We know for a fact that Hibernum included some code to stop the AI targeting it's own creatures with destruction spells, all Oktagon have to do is remember to set a flag, but they can never be bothered to...

What's the complaint here? That the AI destroys its own creatures incorrectly?

Yes, this has been an ongoing issue for pretty much the length of the game. I've benefited from it, but it also makes me a little sad every time it happens. 

I've posited that's why Oktagon started making the majority of kill spells say "destroy target opponent's creature" instead of just "target creature", as a workaround. 

jtwood

madwren said:

jtwood said:

critman said:

Volrak said:

Oktagon absolutely built on Hibernum's product.  They began by delivering more content within the same framework, and over time have made improvements to the framework too, but there's never been any doubt that it's remained the same software base.

Yeah but would Oktagon even remember to use bits of Hibernum's code that they don't absolutely need to? We know for a fact that Hibernum included some code to stop the AI targeting it's own creatures with destruction spells, all Oktagon have to do is remember to set a flag, but they can never be bothered to...

What's the complaint here? That the AI destroys its own creatures incorrectly?

Yes, this has been an ongoing issue for pretty much the length of the game. I've benefited from it, but it also makes me a little sad every time it happens. 

I've posited that's why Oktagon started making the majority of kill spells say "destroy target opponent's creature" instead of just "target creature", as a workaround.

They fixed it a while back. For most untargeted kill spells/abilities, Greg won't target his own creature now. Greg will still occasionally do it, but it's mostly with older cards. Cards produced in the last one+ year haven't had this issue with Greg killing his own creatures. For example, Final Death is played fairly frequently, and I've never seen Greg exile his own creature with it, and he never Deathsprouted his own creature (even though that could have helped sometimes). Some other popular kill spells that I never saw Greg hit himself with: Final Payment, Price of Fame, Deadly Visit... Feel free to let me know if your experience differed.

Yes, Greg will play board wipes at a disadvanageous time, and maybe that's what you're getting at, but with respect to general targeted removal, Greg doesn't really kill his own stuff anymore.

+1 to Oktagon for fixing/mostly fixing Hibernum's gap on that front

madwren

jtwood said:

madwren said:

jtwood said:

critman said:

Volrak said:

Oktagon absolutely built on Hibernum's product.  They began by delivering more content within the same framework, and over time have made improvements to the framework too, but there's never been any doubt that it's remained the same software base.

Yeah but would Oktagon even remember to use bits of Hibernum's code that they don't absolutely need to? We know for a fact that Hibernum included some code to stop the AI targeting it's own creatures with destruction spells, all Oktagon have to do is remember to set a flag, but they can never be bothered to...

What's the complaint here? That the AI destroys its own creatures incorrectly?

Yes, this has been an ongoing issue for pretty much the length of the game. I've benefited from it, but it also makes me a little sad every time it happens. 

I've posited that's why Oktagon started making the majority of kill spells say "destroy target opponent's creature" instead of just "target creature", as a workaround.

They fixed it a while back. For most untargeted kill spells/abilities, Greg won't target his own creature now. Greg will still occasionally do it, but it's mostly with older cards. Cards produced in the last one+ year haven't had this issue with Greg killing his own creatures. For example, Final Death is played fairly frequently, and I've never seen Greg exile his own creature with it, and he never Deathsprouted his own creature (even though that could have helped sometimes). Some other popular kill spells that I never saw Greg hit himself with: Final Payment, Price of Fame, Deadly Visit... Feel free to let me know if your experience differed.

I disagree.  I've definitely seen Greg drag his creatures to the underworld and bake them into a pie during the current Standard environment--and I mean recently.

However, you do bring up an interesting point. I haven't noticed this occurring with exile effects, possibly because exile was brought into the game at a later date (and was possibly coded correctly). 

jtwood

madwren said:

jtwood said:

madwren said:

jtwood said:

critman said:

Volrak said:

Oktagon absolutely built on Hibernum's product.  They began by delivering more content within the same framework, and over time have made improvements to the framework too, but there's never been any doubt that it's remained the same software base.

Yeah but would Oktagon even remember to use bits of Hibernum's code that they don't absolutely need to? We know for a fact that Hibernum included some code to stop the AI targeting it's own creatures with destruction spells, all Oktagon have to do is remember to set a flag, but they can never be bothered to...

What's the complaint here? That the AI destroys its own creatures incorrectly?

Yes, this has been an ongoing issue for pretty much the length of the game. I've benefited from it, but it also makes me a little sad every time it happens. 

I've posited that's why Oktagon started making the majority of kill spells say "destroy target opponent's creature" instead of just "target creature", as a workaround.

They fixed it a while back. For most untargeted kill spells/abilities, Greg won't target his own creature now. Greg will still occasionally do it, but it's mostly with older cards. Cards produced in the last one+ year haven't had this issue with Greg killing his own creatures. For example, Final Death is played fairly frequently, and I've never seen Greg exile his own creature with it, and he never Deathsprouted his own creature (even though that could have helped sometimes). Some other popular kill spells that I never saw Greg hit himself with: Final Payment, Price of Fame, Deadly Visit... Feel free to let me know if your experience differed.

I disagree.  I've definitely seen Greg drag his creatures to the underworld and bake them into a pie during the current Standard environment--and I mean recently.

However, you do bring up an interesting point. I haven't noticed this occurring with exile effects, possibly because exile was brought into the game at a later date (and was possibly coded correctly). 

For 100% sincere and genuine reasons, I would love to see a battle log showing this. It’s been so long since I’ve seen Greg target and destroy his own creatures that I had forgot he used to do it. 

Tremayne

@jtwood - I have also seen Greg killing his own creatures recently. I don’t have a battle log to prove it, but it happens.