EPTMagic: The Gathering - Page 659
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
Meta
United States6228 Posts
| ||
|
WindWolf
Sweden11767 Posts
The decklists for the Commander 2018 is now out. I haven't looked to deeply into them, but Saheeli looks like she could be a really fun commander with the right deck | ||
|
Glacierz
United States1245 Posts
| ||
|
Klowney
Sweden277 Posts
| ||
|
TentativePanda
United States800 Posts
On August 01 2018 00:26 Meta wrote: Arena is fun but standard is boring. Sticking with MTGO for cube drafts and eternal formats. Hopefully they can implement and streamline older cards in Arena eventually. I think Wizards said they never plan on bringing older formats to Arena. It will always be for standard, standard limited and standard formats like brawl. They are trying to keep MTGO alive as far as I can tell haha | ||
|
Miragee
8707 Posts
| ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On August 08 2018 10:13 Miragee wrote: Is it just me or does the shuffle mechanic in Arena not work correctly? I feel like there is an abundance of games where I draw way to much mana (playing with 22 on 60 atm.). In 50 % of the games I draw too much mana, which means I end up with 0-3 non-land cards within my first 10-20 draws (excluding starting hand). A friend of mine experiences the same. I'm used to playing magic and my decks always fared rather well when using 16-24 mana (depending on the deck). Seems pretty odd. A friend is experiencing the same. The shuffler does some weird stuff with starting hands in bo1s (https://mtgarena.community.gl/forums/threads/11044), but otherwise is normal afaik. It could be a coincidence, or maybe when you play paper magic you don't shuffle quite randomly. When bridge switched to shuffling machines, players found that they got hands that felt less well distributed than those that they got when shuffling by hand. | ||
|
goiflin
Canada1218 Posts
On August 08 2018 11:50 ZigguratOfUr wrote: The shuffler does some weird stuff with starting hands in bo1s (https://mtgarena.community.gl/forums/threads/11044), but otherwise is normal afaik. It could be a coincidence, or maybe when you play paper magic you don't shuffle quite randomly. When bridge switched to shuffling machines, players found that they got hands that felt less well distributed than those that they got when shuffling by hand. Makes sense. A machine can't be truly random anyway. On MTGA and I seem to be doing fine for land drops, but then again, I typically play control decks with 25-26 lands and always want to make land drops, so flooding isn't as big of a concern as say an aggro deck with no filtering mechanics. I honestly hate playing decks that can't filter draws on MTGA because of flooding. Never really happens to me on paper. Or at least, far more rarely. | ||
|
Miragee
8707 Posts
On August 08 2018 11:50 ZigguratOfUr wrote: The shuffler does some weird stuff with starting hands in bo1s (https://mtgarena.community.gl/forums/threads/11044), but otherwise is normal afaik. It could be a coincidence, or maybe when you play paper magic you don't shuffle quite randomly. When bridge switched to shuffling machines, players found that they got hands that felt less well distributed than those that they got when shuffling by hand. That does make sense to me. I know the mechanic is skewed for the first draw of 7 cards (or mulligans). Shuffling paper cards is not random at all indeed so it might feel different. However, I feel like in a true random scenario flooding should happen occasionally but not as often as in Arena. I have played an online simulator for MTG before (it's free and you can use every card etc.) and I don't remember getting flooded with mana nearly as often as in Arena. The simulator played very much like the paper version. I'm not playing at a high level in Arena yet so my opponent often play crappy decks as well or don't understand magic but it's frustrating to play a game and lose with 37 cards left in your deck and 18 lands on the board... With normal opponents/decks the game would be over in no time. Maybe they should skew the mana draw in some way or rework their algorithm. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On August 09 2018 04:00 Miragee wrote: That does make sense to me. I know the mechanic is skewed for the first draw of 7 cards (or mulligans). Shuffling paper cards is not random at all indeed so it might feel different. However, I feel like in a true random scenario flooding should happen occasionally but not as often as in Arena. I have played an online simulator for MTG before (it's free and you can use every card etc.) and I don't remember getting flooded with mana nearly as often as in Arena. The simulator played very much like the paper version. I'm not playing at a high level in Arena yet so my opponent often play crappy decks as well or don't understand magic but it's frustrating to play a game and lose with 37 cards left in your deck and 18 lands on the board... With normal opponents/decks the game would be over in no time. Maybe they should skew the mana draw in some way or rework their algorithm. Perfect timing: https://blog.mtgatracker.com/debunking-the-evil-shuffler | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On August 09 2018 01:08 goiflin wrote: Makes sense. A machine can't be truly random anyway. On MTGA and I seem to be doing fine for land drops, but then again, I typically play control decks with 25-26 lands and always want to make land drops, so flooding isn't as big of a concern as say an aggro deck with no filtering mechanics. I honestly hate playing decks that can't filter draws on MTGA because of flooding. Never really happens to me on paper. Or at least, far more rarely. It's the opposite actually. A machine is much more random than people shuffling by hand--actual randomness in bridge felt less well distributed than the skewed randomness that people shuffling came to expect. With machines shuffling people got an equal number of cards of each suit less often. | ||
|
Dandel Ion
Austria17960 Posts
neat | ||
|
Miragee
8707 Posts
On August 10 2018 08:15 WolfintheSheep wrote: Perfect timing: https://blog.mtgatracker.com/debunking-the-evil-shuffler That article is flawed. It so superficial. It takes the first 10 draws and says 2 mana or 6 mana in the first 10 draws is questionable. Alright, but what about drawing those 2 mana as card 9+10 or 8+10? That's included in that statement. You might be dead by that point as well. Same about drawing 6 mana in the first 6 rounds (dependings on the deck you are playing that might be terrible or ok). But if you only take that into account and dismiss other flaws of the method used you will probably end up with 1/4 pissed and 3/4 healthy. I doubt that's what you are looking for in a game. | ||
micronesia
United States24799 Posts
On August 12 2018 04:16 Miragee wrote: That article is flawed. It so superficial. It takes the first 10 draws and says 2 mana or 6 mana in the first 10 draws is questionable. Alright, but what about drawing those 2 mana as card 9+10 or 8+10? That's included in that statement. You might be dead by that point as well. Same about drawing 6 mana in the first 6 rounds (dependings on the deck you are playing that might be terrible or ok). But if you only take that into account and dismiss other flaws of the method used you will probably end up with 1/4 pissed and 3/4 healthy. I doubt that's what you are looking for in a game. Even if you accept that they did some smoothing/hand waving in order to keep the data collection simple, the article is still flawed in that it did not use an actual statistical test in order to determine how well randomized the draws are. They literally constructed a histogram and said it looks good. No math was used to determine how 'good' the histogram was. No level of confidence was assigned to the conclusion. I understand they wanted the average reader who hasn't taken statistics 200 to be able to follow the article, but they should have taken the analysis a step further even if they didn't fully explain it. edit: For the record, I expect the randomizer when properly tested to work fine. It would be super easy for the company to test it themselves too. | ||
|
Fecalfeast
Canada11355 Posts
I have only played standard on mtga and even with the rudimentary knowledge of which cards are commonly played by which colours I can read what cards people have in their hands just by watching how the engine responds. I actually started playing a goblin deck with skirk prospector and the 1/1 haste that can sac for 1 damage just to have stuff on the board to catch priorities. That being said I understand the logic behind not wanting every turn to take a really long time but there has to be a happy medium between asking players to pass priority on the opponents turn 2 draw step and blatantly broadcasting that you have an instant in your hand at all available opportunities | ||
|
micronesia
United States24799 Posts
| ||
|
Miragee
8707 Posts
| ||
|
blade55555
United States17423 Posts
| ||
|
Miragee
8707 Posts
| ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
| ||
| ||
