EPT16 land in a 40 card deck... didnt draw a single land til round 15...yay
opponent drew both of his 1-of rares in both games yay
Magic: The Gathering - Page 473
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
MaestroSC
United States2073 Posts
16 land in a 40 card deck... didnt draw a single land til round 15...yay opponent drew both of his 1-of rares in both games yay | ||
micronesia
United States24762 Posts
On October 11 2013 11:51 MaestroSC wrote: Love that rng... 16 land in a 40 card deck... didnt draw a single land til round 15...yay opponent drew both of his 1-of rares in both games yay Wow you made it to turn 15 without drawing a single land? What was your starting hand? Also why do you think this happened out of curiosity? Do you think there is an error in the randomization algorithm, or do you just think you got incredibly unlucky? | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On October 11 2013 11:51 MaestroSC wrote: Love that rng... 16 land in a 40 card deck... didnt draw a single land til round 15...yay opponent drew both of his 1-of rares in both games yay Shows you why its important to run 17-18  just joshing you of course, but I hope you had damn good reason to drop to 16 lands. | ||
|
MaestroSC
United States2073 Posts
On October 11 2013 12:08 Thieving Magpie wrote: Shows you why its important to run 17-18 just joshing you of course, but I hope you had damn good reason to drop to 16 lands. was running a very low mana curve deck... only reason i was able to get to turn 20 and only barely lose the whole time rocking only 2 mana on the board, also had 2 mana accelorators in my deck, which helped me for a while. started with 2 mana in hand, a mana accelorator, and had 5 creatures on the board by turn 5, incluiding a 5-4 thanks to enchantments, but never drew a land until the game was basically over Just unlucky I guess, i wont cry broken, cause i have 0 proof haha, just am unlucky. Last draft I ran with 20 land, didnt draw a land til turn 10, sometimes MTG just wants me to lose i guess | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On October 11 2013 13:23 MaestroSC wrote: was running a very low mana curve deck... only reason i was able to get to turn 20 and only barely lose the whole time rocking only 2 mana on the board, also had 2 mana accelorators in my deck, which helped me for a while. started with 2 mana in hand, a mana accelorator, and had 5 creatures on the board by turn 5, incluiding a 5-4 thanks to enchantments, but never drew a land until the game was basically over Just unlucky I guess, i wont cry broken, cause i have 0 proof haha, just am unlucky. Last draft I ran with 20 land, didnt draw a land til turn 10, sometimes MTG just wants me to lose i guess I have a huge problem with magic workstation's algorithms. It's always feast or famine when it comes to drawing lands. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24762 Posts
On October 11 2013 13:31 Thieving Magpie wrote: Do you actually think they screwed up the code for shuffling? I'm sure it's possible, but pretty unlikely. The mind tends to remember tail behavior a disproportionate amount... I think that's why Judicator always gives me a hard time when I argue I had pretty shitty luck with mana for my first couple of dozen matches on mtgo.I have a huge problem with magic workstation's algorithms. It's always feast or famine when it comes to drawing lands. With magic workstation it should be fairly straightforward to test the algorithm if you are interested. It's probably harder with mtgo unless you have two clients running or get some special access from the staff (not likely I'm guessing). | ||
|
Judicator
United States7270 Posts
On October 11 2013 13:36 micronesia wrote: Do you actually think they screwed up the code for shuffling? I'm sure it's possible, but pretty unlikely. The mind tends to remember tail behavior a disproportionate amount... I think that's why Judicator always gives me a hard time when I argue I had pretty shitty luck with mana for my first couple of dozen matches on mtgo. With magic workstation it should be fairly straightforward to test the algorithm if you are interested. It's probably harder with mtgo unless you have two clients running or get some special access from the staff (not likely I'm guessing). Yes, MWS has pretty shitty randomization algothrims, I have found it better to not shuffle at all at the start and let the initial seeding do it. I am pretty sure that if you shuffle it exactly once, you'll have the top card of your deck stay on the top of your deck. In any case, the randomization seems too simplistic, my personal experience (read: anecdotal) with it after 1k+ hours on it seems like that if you run 25 lands, you're more likely to get mana screwed and if you run 24, you're usually alright, if you run 26 you're golden, but if you run 27 all hell breaks loose with flooding. I don't think my sample sizes are that large for each land configuration. MWS also seems to behave interesting with 1-ofs. In UW testing, I am very likely to see the Aetherling more than I am likely to see another 6 drop, the number of times I started with Aetherling in hand is fairly common. It almost feels like MWS organizes the deck first then shuffles instead of randomizing. In any case, I don't believe that the randomization is very good on MWS which is why I usually don't mess with it. Another thing, I think whatever criteria is uses to "determine" randomization in MWS is absolute shit. To explain, if you have a 50/50 shot to draw something out of a 100 card deck, I almost positive based on personal experience that MWS sometimes randomizes in big chunks, like 20 of A then 30 of B, etc. By definition, the probabilities are still 50/50 in the scope of a 100 card deck, but then we get stuff like what Thieving Magpie describes with feast and famine. I know there are fallacies in my example, the point is that MWS seems to randomize in broad scopes. @micronesia I actually just had issues with how you were like going down the path of blame RNG all my problems are solved kind of mentality when for new players that is rarely the case. If anything newbies are more likely to keep sketch hands and "get there" then when the RNG actually catches up to them either directly or indirectly, they get all upset. You might have actually be legitimately unlucky, but who knows I wasn't watching your matches. | ||
|
caelym
United States6421 Posts
On October 11 2013 11:32 Kinie wrote: Looking for some help tweaking/evaluating this deck I'm trying to build. The core idea I guess is GW good stuff.dec + Show Spoiler + 2 Scavenging Ooze 4 Sylvan Caryatid 4 Archangel of Thune 4 Fleecemane Lion 4 Loxodon Smiter 2 Trostani, Selesnya's Voice 4 Voice of Resurgence 3 Kalonian Hydra 4 Selesnya Charm 3 Advent of the Wurm 2 Garruk, Caller of Beasts 4 Temple Garden 4 Selesnya Guildgate 9 Forest 7 Plains SB: 2 Unflinching Courage SB: 2 Ready // Willing SB: 2 Bow of Nylea SB: 1 Fade into Antiquity SB: 1 Soul Tithe SB: 1 Rootborn Defenses SB: 2 Fiendslayer Paladin SB: 2 Banisher Priest SB: 2 Pithing Needle I suppose my main questions are this: 1. Is splashing black (4 Overgrown Tomb + 4 Godless Shrine) for Thoughtsieze, Blood Baron and Golgari Charm worth the additional pain from the lands? 2. Is this too mid range-y for the perceived metagame of RDW, GW Aggro, and UW (x) Control? 3. Any other recommendations for cards, like should I go smaller to a more GW Aggro strategy, or go into a third color for more Junk/Bant/Naya cards? I don't play Standard but I do read a bunch of articles so take what I say with a grain of salt. Ooze and Archangel seem weird in the midrange creature beatdown strategy. elvish mystic fits the curve better than sylvan caryatid because you want to drop voice or fleecemane on turn 2 instead of mana ramp. Unfliching Courage and Rootborn Defenses may be good enough to maindeck. Isn't Boon Satyr too good to not include? The list you currently have is like a slower and high curved version of GW aggro without much of a power level gain that comes from a higher curve. If you do want to stick to midrange instead of aggro, it probably is worth it to go Junk colors. This list looks pretty good (minus the oozes which I don't think is too good in standard). | ||
|
micronesia
United States24762 Posts
It's pretty easy to test MWS if you have some time. Unfortunately, without looking at how it's coded, you can't test every aspect of its operation at once. However, a good thing to do would be to record the starting hand from a planned deck many times and look at a frequency distribution. I assume the program shuffles your deck (ostensibly randomizing card order, but maybe not truly random due to poor coding or attempts to simulate imperfect real-life shuffling) and then deals the first seven cards in order. If you have a deck of say, 60 unique cards, you can record how many times each card makes it into the starting hand after say, 10,000 opening hands. Of course, on average each card should have an 11.666% (7/60) chance of making it to the opening hand, so each card should make it about 1167 times in the 10,000 trials. Using basic statistics methods (stat 101 essentially) you can determine the odds that the shuffler is working based on these results. I don't think any of this is a surprise to anyone reading this. You could simplify the test by just seeing how many lands make it to your opening hand on average and comparing it to the percentage of lands in your deck, but I'm worried such a test could be skewed by coding which treats lands differently than nonlands when shuffling (which is why you'd be better of with unique cards). The problem as Judicator pointed out is that there are many ways for these programs to screw up (the example given was the top card staying the top card after a shuffle). Maybe the opening hand works perfectly, but there is imperfect randomness when a deck is reshuffled due to a card effect like 'unexpected results'. Maybe a deck accidentally gets partially sorted due to improper coding when a tutor-style card is used. It's pretty much impossible to eliminate all possible ways the program screws up randomness. However, I will always assume the program is working properly unless someone has demonstrated that it is not. For example, some of Judicator's observations might actually be due to improper operation of the program, but it's always safer to assume a person is perceiving trends rather than observing them. Regarding RNG... I wouldn't blame a program without testing it myself (using actual methods... not just general observations). My complaining about my bad luck was specifically not about mtgo being broken somehow, just to clarify. | ||
|
MCMcEmcee
United States1609 Posts
I've been relatively happy with Ooze in my Junk deck for whatever it's worth. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
Then I proxy up a deck/put the cards together and I find that it is a LOT more consistent than MWS. Thus, from my experience, MWS is great for testing decks out to see if you'll enjoy it. But before you dump money on cards proxy it in real life first. Mostly I find it saves me a LOT of ink and paper. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24762 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On October 11 2013 14:13 caelym wrote: I don't play Standard but I do read a bunch of articles so take what I say with a grain of salt. Ooze and Archangel seem weird in the midrange creature beatdown strategy. elvish mystic fits the curve better than sylvan caryatid because you want to drop voice or fleecemane on turn 2 instead of mana ramp. Unfliching Courage may be good enough to maindeck. Isn't Boon Satyr too good to not include? The list you currently have is like a slower and high curved version of GW aggro without the much of a power level gain that comes from a higher curve. If you do want to stick to midrange instead of aggro, it probably is worth it to go Junk colors. This list looks pretty good (minus the oozes which I don't think is too good in standard). The rule for ramp cards is that they need to be useful the turn after you use them. If you use Elvish Mystic then you need a lot of 3 drops. If you use Caryatid, then you use a lot of 4 drops. For example, turn 1 Mystic => turn 2 Fleeceman sucks, you'd rather have a better 1 drop. However, turn 2 Caryatid into turn 3 Smiter sucks just as badly--your turn 2 play can't even swing. The caveat to this is mana fixing. Farseek was just as important at fixing mana issues as it was ramping to 4 mana. So if you're deck has mana problems, sometimes the best answer is a birds of paradise (albeit, a fat one that can't fly). Its better to choose one or the other for the sake of consistency. Either your mana fixes colors or it ramps spells. match the rest of your deck accordingly. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On October 11 2013 14:45 micronesia wrote: With the amount of money and effort you guys put in (it makes mine look like nothing) I'm surprised you haven't already done some testing of the software you are using... for mtg testing! lol It wasn't by choice. Friend of mine wanted to use it so he and I could play on skype. Before that I was purely a proxy => buy/trade => bring to tournament kind of guy. My friend quit, but damn I love using workstation to test out brews before I spend a saturday afternoon clipping paper with scissors for proxies. | ||
|
hunts
United States2113 Posts
1: What happens when multiple first strike creatures block a bigger non first strike creature? Do all the first strike ones go before the normal one they're blocking or would it be 1st first striker goes, big one hits him back, 2nd first striker goes, etc..? 2: I'm bad at doing m14 drafts which im trying to do to turn my new player tokens into more tickets, are there certain archetypes (aside from blue) that are just good to play in m14? So far the drafts I've won were as blue/black, black/red, and blue/white, but i lose most of the ones I play in. and 3: I asked on the other page but it got ignored, what is or are in your opinions the most consistent decks for standard constructed? Or is luck/deck countering really big for every deck? | ||
|
DEN1ED
United States1087 Posts
Blue is the best in m14 but everyone knows that so you just have to feel it out. Standard is too new to really say which deck is most consistent. We went from 1 week being dominated by monored and UWx control to the next week being dominated by green aggro and midrange. | ||
|
caelym
United States6421 Posts
On October 11 2013 14:55 hunts wrote: I have a few questions if anyone would like to answer. 1: What happens when multiple first strike creatures block a bigger non first strike creature? Do all the first strike ones go before the normal one they're blocking or would it be 1st first striker goes, big one hits him back, 2nd first striker goes, etc..? 2: I'm bad at doing m14 drafts which im trying to do to turn my new player tokens into more tickets, are there certain archetypes (aside from blue) that are just good to play in m14? So far the drafts I've won were as blue/black, black/red, and blue/white, but i lose most of the ones I play in. and 3: I asked on the other page but it got ignored, what is or are in your opinions the most consistent decks for standard constructed? Or is luck/deck countering really big for every deck? 1. big non first strike dies, your dudes live 2. blue is easily the strongest color. red is also good with good beaters and removal. I always go at least one of those colors in my draft. I like blue/red the best. 3. most top decks are consistent or else they wouldn't be placing results in a big tournament. the biggest standard tournament is starting today: Pro Tour Theros. keep you eye out for the dominant decks played there. | ||
|
Shotcoder
United States2316 Posts
On October 11 2013 11:32 Kinie wrote: Looking for some help tweaking/evaluating this deck I'm trying to build. The core idea I guess is GW good stuff.dec + Show Spoiler + 2 Scavenging Ooze 4 Sylvan Caryatid 4 Archangel of Thune 4 Fleecemane Lion 4 Loxodon Smiter 2 Trostani, Selesnya's Voice 4 Voice of Resurgence 3 Kalonian Hydra 4 Selesnya Charm 3 Advent of the Wurm 2 Garruk, Caller of Beasts 4 Temple Garden 4 Selesnya Guildgate 9 Forest 7 Plains SB: 2 Unflinching Courage SB: 2 Ready // Willing SB: 2 Bow of Nylea SB: 1 Fade into Antiquity SB: 1 Soul Tithe SB: 1 Rootborn Defenses SB: 2 Fiendslayer Paladin SB: 2 Banisher Priest SB: 2 Pithing Needle I suppose my main questions are this: 1. Is splashing black (4 Overgrown Tomb + 4 Godless Shrine) for Thoughtsieze, Blood Baron and Golgari Charm worth the additional pain from the lands? 2. Is this too mid range-y for the perceived metagame of RDW, GW Aggro, and UW (x) Control? 3. Any other recommendations for cards, like should I go smaller to a more GW Aggro strategy, or go into a third color for more Junk/Bant/Naya cards? After watching Dan Musser play his list from SCG Cleveland...Splash Black. GW aggro shouldnt be played unless you plan on trying to be bigger than RDW and better vs esper. You lose to every midrange deck in the format. On October 11 2013 14:55 hunts wrote: I have a few questions if anyone would like to answer. 1: What happens when multiple first strike creatures block a bigger non first strike creature? Do all the first strike ones go before the normal one they're blocking or would it be 1st first striker goes, big one hits him back, 2nd first striker goes, etc..? 2: I'm bad at doing m14 drafts which im trying to do to turn my new player tokens into more tickets, are there certain archetypes (aside from blue) that are just good to play in m14? So far the drafts I've won were as blue/black, black/red, and blue/white, but i lose most of the ones I play in. and 3: I asked on the other page but it got ignored, what is or are in your opinions the most consistent decks for standard constructed? Or is luck/deck countering really big for every deck? First strike damage all happens at once. RG is pretty good, BW is good as well.just depends on what you get passed. Every deck and every format has better match ups or tier 1 decks, but it's more about know how to play those match ups that really helps. Right now RDW, Esper/UW, RBW midrange, Junk Midrange, and maybe GW are the big decks, but Big Boros is a thing, mono white always will be, Boros aggro is a thing, BW midrange...It's still early to tell really. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On October 11 2013 14:55 hunts wrote: I have a few questions if anyone would like to answer. 1: What happens when multiple first strike creatures block a bigger non first strike creature? Do all the first strike ones go before the normal one they're blocking or would it be 1st first striker goes, big one hits him back, 2nd first striker goes, etc..? 2: I'm bad at doing m14 drafts which im trying to do to turn my new player tokens into more tickets, are there certain archetypes (aside from blue) that are just good to play in m14? So far the drafts I've won were as blue/black, black/red, and blue/white, but i lose most of the ones I play in. and 3: I asked on the other page but it got ignored, what is or are in your opinions the most consistent decks for standard constructed? Or is luck/deck countering really big for every deck? Combat damage comes in 2 phases. First strike, then combat damage. 1.) Essentially you declare attackers, then your creatures attacks, then your opponent declares defenders, then blocks happen. After blocks happen, first strike damage happens all at once. After first strike happens, normal damage happens all at once. 2.) I suck at draft 3.) The tier 1 decks are always consistent and can beat each other rather evenly. "counters" are usually reserved for tier 2 decks and are very inconsistent relative to the tier 1 decks. Essentially tier 1 decks are the most consistent decks and hence become tier 1. Tier 2 decks are the ones that emerge from the tier 1 metagame designed to "counter" tier 1 decks. Brews are usually consistent but not as good as tier 1 decks--these usually smack tier 2 decks around. All 3 are very gray in their divisions and shifts constantly. In essence, tier 1 decks are always the backbone that deck design responds to. Tier 2 comes about when someone "figures out" the metagame. Tier 3 are all the decks tier 1 destroys consistently. The hard part is that these tiers are in hindsight. In that the metagame plays for 1-4 weeks and then you know if you were playing a tier 1, 2, or 3 deck. You don't really know which one you're running before hand. | ||
|
hunts
United States2113 Posts
Also I've been reading magic.tcgplayer.com for their articles, but Craig Wescoe is the only one there who is actually high ranked from what I've seen, do any of the other top players ever write articles, and if so what sites or forums would be the place to go for that? Thanks for all the help! | ||
| ||
