You can import MWS decks directly into it, and since it's an overall better system than MWS but without the deckbuilding utility, I just use both for their relevant purposes.
But yeah, there is a section in the magic software board.
I have tried it and like it but I wish there was someway to download Apprentice.dec deck files into it. I have many, many old decks saved and some of the are very current - test decks for Standard, Legacy (good decks which can just use some tweaking according to the latest metagame) and Vintage decks (which never really die). Many current articles have easy MWS and Appr downloads buttons for savings decks and this would make it nice to stick into Cockatrice.
I have tried it and like it but I wish there was someway to download Apprentice.dec deck files into it. I have many, many old decks saved and some of the are very current - test decks for Standard, Legacy (good decks which can just use some tweaking according to the latest metagame) and Vintage decks (which never really die). Many current articles have easy MWS and Appr downloads buttons for savings decks and this would make it nice to stick into Cockatrice.
While it's not really using the deck files, have you consider just opening up the Apprentice.dec deck files you want to use for Cockatrice with Notepad, copy the contents, then load the deck through the "Load deck from clipboard" option on Cockatrice's deck editor?
I think it's ridiculous we can't discuss the shuffler. That is a PROMINENT issue in MWS and the crux of a lot of people's preference in Magic progs.
That's like having a Standard thread where you aren't allowed to discuss Stoneforge Mystic.
So advisory be damned, in my experiments with Cockatrice the shuffler is not better than MWS. It seems to favor cards that are already in your hand. (For instance if you have singletons of Cards 1-20 in your deck and 3 copies of Card 21, if you have Card 21 in your hand, you're actually very likely to draw another copy or two of Card 21 than any of Card 1-20.) This effect is very prominent in decks that have more realistic quantities.
It's also at it's most frustrating when you're low on lands or have too many due to the nature of the program delivering more of what you have already than what you don't have.
Again, keep in mind, this is only my experience so far. I got the program a week ago and have been messing with it an hour or so a day to check its tendencies as I know it is new.
7 hours of shuffling may not be an optimal sample size, but it's a sample size. When I say I've been shuffling for that amount of time, I mean just that. I'm not playing games with that amount of time. I'm opening the program and spending an hour or so building decks with varying quantities and messing with outcomes.
There is an enormous tendency to draw cards with the same names as the ones you already have. I'm not complaining about the program, I'm just sharing my findings. I have no investment in whether or not they're valid or invalid, but they are what I've found.
I have tried it and like it but I wish there was someway to download Apprentice.dec deck files into it. I have many, many old decks saved and some of the are very current - test decks for Standard, Legacy (good decks which can just use some tweaking according to the latest metagame) and Vintage decks (which never really die). Many current articles have easy MWS and Appr downloads buttons for savings decks and this would make it nice to stick into Cockatrice.
You can. Go into the deck editor > deck > load deck, and where it says files of type, select Plain text decks (*.dec *.mwDeck).
I think it's ridiculous we can't discuss the shuffler. That is a PROMINENT issue in MWS and the crux of a lot of people's preference in Magic progs.
That's like having a Standard thread where you aren't allowed to discuss Stoneforge Mystic.
...lol
You can't discuss the shuffler because no one knows how to discuss the shuffler. "The shuffler tends to do [x]" is not an argument, yet it's the only thing anyone ever says about it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DCI Certified Level 1 Judge
Remember, kids: Never fight with Flashback, 'cause Flashback always wins.
That statement alone invalidates your accusation. Not trying to be snarky, but 7 hours of testing is far too small a sample size. Once you have several hundred million shuffles logged, then you might be able to say if there is a skew one way or the other.
The fact is, the MWS and Cockatrice shuffler are FINE. What is NOT fine is HUMAN shuffling which is NOT AS RANDOM as a PsudoRandom Computer Generated shuffler. This leads to us complaining about the real randomness because decks in Real life are not as random.
The reason people cry about the Shuffler is that Cocatrice and MWS have as close to perfect randomness as you can get without radioactive decay hardware.
It is world known that MWS is biaised. It has been revealed with multiple performance of a khi² law on hundred millions of shuffles (using the routine for automatic suffling provided by MWS). It has also been shown years ago that the shuffler module contains elemental bugs, when the MWS developing team decided to reveal the code source of the shuffling subroutine to end the rumor... (http://www.mwsgames.com/index.php/MWS_Shuffler)
But it does have deckbuilding >_>
Get it.
While it's not really using the deck files, have you consider just opening up the Apprentice.dec deck files you want to use for Cockatrice with Notepad, copy the contents, then load the deck through the "Load deck from clipboard" option on Cockatrice's deck editor?
Special thanks to XenoNinja of Heroes of the Plane Studios for the awesome avy!
That's like having a Standard thread where you aren't allowed to discuss Stoneforge Mystic.
So advisory be damned, in my experiments with Cockatrice the shuffler is not better than MWS. It seems to favor cards that are already in your hand. (For instance if you have singletons of Cards 1-20 in your deck and 3 copies of Card 21, if you have Card 21 in your hand, you're actually very likely to draw another copy or two of Card 21 than any of Card 1-20.) This effect is very prominent in decks that have more realistic quantities.
It's also at it's most frustrating when you're low on lands or have too many due to the nature of the program delivering more of what you have already than what you don't have.
Again, keep in mind, this is only my experience so far. I got the program a week ago and have been messing with it an hour or so a day to check its tendencies as I know it is new.
There is an enormous tendency to draw cards with the same names as the ones you already have. I'm not complaining about the program, I'm just sharing my findings. I have no investment in whether or not they're valid or invalid, but they are what I've found.
You can. Go into the deck editor > deck > load deck, and where it says files of type, select Plain text decks (*.dec *.mwDeck).
...lol
You can't discuss the shuffler because no one knows how to discuss the shuffler. "The shuffler tends to do [x]" is not an argument, yet it's the only thing anyone ever says about it.
Remember, kids: Never fight with Flashback, 'cause Flashback always wins.
It is world known that MWS is biaised. It has been revealed with multiple performance of a khi² law on hundred millions of shuffles (using the routine for automatic suffling provided by MWS). It has also been shown years ago that the shuffler module contains elemental bugs, when the MWS developing team decided to reveal the code source of the shuffling subroutine to end the rumor... (http://www.mwsgames.com/index.php/MWS_Shuffler)