With a normal amount of lands in a deck, there is a bout a 1/1000 chance that a specific set of 7 cards in a row will be 7 lands. There's probably a few thousand games going on at any one time, so you're bound to see this every so often. If it NEVER happened, the system would not be random (YES I KNOW - COMPUTERS CAN'T CREATE REAL RANDOMNESS - I'M TALKING ABOUT FUNCTIONAL RANDOMNESS).
We should sticky this thread and rename it something like "The Official MTGO Shuffler Complaining Thread" and have everyone who can't accept that there's nothing wrong with the shuffler complain at will. Then give a to every new thread about the subject, or move the posts here.
Also, no talking about how the shuffler IS random would be allowed in such thread, except for the link posted by pizzap relocated by a mod with modtext in the OP.
You do realize that people complain about this all the time irl magic, right? The fact that it happened on mtgo doesn't mean (nor should it be interpreted to mean) that the shuffler is at fault.
That many lands in a row? I understand random but those are the only lands left in my deck. It somehow grouped all the rest of my lands together.
Yes. That's random. That's pretty much the definition of random, that any two cards can end up next to each other. No matter what they are. So...yes, that is random. Arguing it's not shows a misunderstanding of what randomness is.
I'm not saying this to you specifically, but I can't stand when players blame the shuffler. For all intents and purposes its random. I've had a player tell me my deck is bad and would never win in a "real game", after I beat him. When I told him" it just did" he said its only cause the game isn't random and that if he could play me in real life where he can shuffle his own cards he'd, own me. *Sigh* I don't know why I let people like that get to me, but the stupidity just hurts.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sig banner courtesy of Miraculous Recovery Signatures
Some people think weird stuff is the definition of random. Thus mtgo is programmed to include weird rows - thus it isnt random.
Yep, that is how it is, or was done, years ago when client was made. Cheap solutions and weirdlings to make it more believable - weird wanna be random.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
- This is, honestly, a grotesque advantage.
Noah Weil on scouting, an attorney from Seattle with 20 Pro Tour appearances.
Some people think weird stuff is the definition of random. Thus mtgo is programmed to include weird rows - thus it isnt random.
Yep, that is how it is, or was done, years ago when client was made. Cheap solutions and weirdlings to make it more believable - weird wanna be random.
I have a legit question for those who have played Duels of the PW.
Does that program force good hands, or do you have to mull just like in RL/MTGO?
If it has contrived hands then as more and more players transfer over we're going to be answering this a LOT.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
File this under "FML" (F My Life) not "Shuffler sux" and you'll be a lot more happy in life realizing that we all have major FML moments it becomes comedy.
In the draft I just finished I went 8 turns without drawing a land (somehow still won tho). It happens. Odds are it will be awhile until it happens again if that makes you feel better.
I've decided that I just want to know exactly how many times the code applies the shuffling "randomizer" to your deck list. I built some models using the formula they supposedly use and to me it doesn't really look sufficiently random unless it's being applied 4 times. Then again I'm not a mathematician so I possibly did not correctly apply the formula to the list.
Not that this wan't mentioned previously, but the real problem here is not that MTGO isn't random (it is), but that it's a poor approximation of the paper game, which is not truly random.
With paper, people can weave their lands in before shuffling. Yes, you can still get mana screwed or flooded, but it happens less often--and doesn't last as many turns--because there's a more even distribution of lands in the deck than true randomness. In theory this shouldn't be the case, but in practice it certainly is. Then you go online and play with a truly randomized deck, and it feels wrong and you get screwed out of games more often.
The question then becomes: which is better? Personally, I think they should break the shuffler to be a little less random, so you get to actually play more often (though this is a bit of a programming challenge to do fairly)...but there's a perfectly good argument to be made that truly random is better and paper magic needs to adapt, or that people should just get over it and accept that the formats are a little different.
Please Lock this thread..... it has just become another complain about the shuffler thread with nothing constructive.
It's become that? Pretty sure it started out that way.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Winner of the SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Jul 26-28, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Las Vegas, NV, Dec 13-15, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Aug 28-30, 2015
Winner of SCG Worcester Team Sealed Open with Gerard Fabiano and Curtis Sheu, September 28, 2013
Not that this wan't mentioned previously, but the real problem here is not that MTGO isn't random (it is), but that it's a poor approximation of the paper game, which is not truly random.
With paper, people can weave their lands in before shuffling. Yes, you can still get mana screwed or flooded, but it happens less often--and doesn't last as many turns--because there's a more even distribution of lands in the deck than true randomness. In theory this shouldn't be the case, but in practice it certainly is. Then you go online and play with a truly randomized deck, and it feels wrong and you get screwed out of games more often.
The question then becomes: which is better? Personally, I think they should break the shuffler to be a little less random, so you get to actually play more often (though this is a bit of a programming challenge to do fairly)...but there's a perfectly good argument to be made that truly random is better and paper magic needs to adapt, or that people should just get over it and accept that the formats are a little different.
It's a poor approximation of the game because it doesn't allow people to cheat? Mana weaving IS cheating. It's insufficent randomization of your deck, and if you were seen doing it at ANY level where it was of any importance, you'd get yourself bounced from the event pretty quickly.
While the process of mana weaving and then properly randomizing your deck may give you the psychological impression and feeling that your deck is running better, it will have had no effect. And if it does? Well, they you're still insufficently randomizing your cards, and still cheating.
The reason we get so many of these threads is that people cheat ALL the time in paper, as well as the fact that blaming the shuffler gives them an excuse to validate thier own ego... because they're the ONLY person who ever hits on bad luck! Every game they win is ALWAYS only because of their skill, never because someone else had a bad run of luck, and ever loss of their is ALWAYS bad luck and a bad beat story.
And if it does? Well, they you're still insufficently randomizing your cards, and still cheating.
There's a grey area between "I didn't really shuffle after mana weaving" and "I have completely randomized my deck", and even at a lot of competitive events, I guarantee that many players' decks fall in that grey area...even if they think they're doing a good job of shuffling.
If you're too good at shuffling--completely interweaving every card--you'll actually preserve more order than if you're mediocre at it. If you're too bad at it, large clumps stay together and are also not randomized. You can get to the point of being essentially random, but you need to do a fair number of shuffles (the "cannon" number being 7) and you also need to be good, but not perfect, at shuffling. Calling everybody who falls short on that a cheater may be technically correct, but it's silly and counterproductive.
All of this has already been observed when computerized playing card games were created--experienced players got upset because they were used to reality where true randomization essentially never happens. Whether they're "right" or not, WotC is a business; they've gone with 100% random now, but if too many people were to stop using MTGO because it doesn't feel like the game they're used to, they're completely within their rights to change it.
Mana weaving is 100% legal, so long as you "sufficiently randomize" after that. In theory, it would then make no difference. In practice, show me a case where a judge has issued penalty for insufficient randomization after 5 good riffle shuffles, even though that's still usually not truly random. You can call it cheating if you want, but it's reality, like it or not.
Either your deck will be fully randomized after shuffling or it will not. If it is, then mana weaving doesn't do anything. If it's not randomized, then mana weaving is actually cheating.
There is no argument that says mana weaving increases the randomness by the way, because you are creating an ordered pattern. That's the opposite of randomness, by definition.
The problem with defining [EDH] by what is "fun" is that everyone seems to define fun as what they don't lose to. If you keep losing to easily answered cards, that means you should improve your deck. If you don't want to improve your deck, then you should come to peace with the idea that you are going to lose because you chose to not interact with better strategies.
If it's not randomized, then mana weaving is actually cheating.
The point is that defining what is truly "randomized" is not a simple thing, and can be hard to tell the difference between something random and something semi-random. Because realistically most people are going to end up semi-random with cardboard, they get a different experience from MTGO and feel like it's wrong. You can call it cheating if it makes you happy, but it's pointless; there probably isn't a player alive who achieves completely 100% randomization every single time they shuffle up, though most will do well enough.
Paper magic will always be semi-random until they introduce card randomizers, and MTGO will be random unless WotC decides that it shouldn't be. That's the source of the complaining, and whining because people are unhappy that there's a difference is just as pointless as whining about the shuffler.
That many lands in a row? I understand random but those are the only lands left in my deck. It somehow grouped all the rest of my lands together.
Also, no talking about how the shuffler IS random would be allowed in such thread, except for the link posted by pizzap relocated by a mod with modtext in the OP.
My Q0.02
My YouTube Channel
Yes. That's random. That's pretty much the definition of random, that any two cards can end up next to each other. No matter what they are. So...yes, that is random. Arguing it's not shows a misunderstanding of what randomness is.
If you start looking for 7-land sequences at ANY point during the game, not just openers, then you'll notice a lot of them.
Sig banner courtesy of Miraculous Recovery Signatures
Yep, that is how it is, or was done, years ago when client was made. Cheap solutions and weirdlings to make it more believable - weird wanna be random.
Noah Weil on scouting, an attorney from Seattle with 20 Pro Tour appearances.
And your source for this claim is?
Does that program force good hands, or do you have to mull just like in RL/MTGO?
If it has contrived hands then as more and more players transfer over we're going to be answering this a LOT.
But also, DotP lets you mull to 7 the first time. Which softens the impact of terrible hands, since you rarely have to play with them.
With paper, people can weave their lands in before shuffling. Yes, you can still get mana screwed or flooded, but it happens less often--and doesn't last as many turns--because there's a more even distribution of lands in the deck than true randomness. In theory this shouldn't be the case, but in practice it certainly is. Then you go online and play with a truly randomized deck, and it feels wrong and you get screwed out of games more often.
The question then becomes: which is better? Personally, I think they should break the shuffler to be a little less random, so you get to actually play more often (though this is a bit of a programming challenge to do fairly)...but there's a perfectly good argument to be made that truly random is better and paper magic needs to adapt, or that people should just get over it and accept that the formats are a little different.
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Las Vegas, NV, Dec 13-15, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Aug 28-30, 2015
Winner of SCG Worcester Team Sealed Open with Gerard Fabiano and Curtis Sheu, September 28, 2013
twitter
It's a poor approximation of the game because it doesn't allow people to cheat? Mana weaving IS cheating. It's insufficent randomization of your deck, and if you were seen doing it at ANY level where it was of any importance, you'd get yourself bounced from the event pretty quickly.
While the process of mana weaving and then properly randomizing your deck may give you the psychological impression and feeling that your deck is running better, it will have had no effect. And if it does? Well, they you're still insufficently randomizing your cards, and still cheating.
The reason we get so many of these threads is that people cheat ALL the time in paper, as well as the fact that blaming the shuffler gives them an excuse to validate thier own ego... because they're the ONLY person who ever hits on bad luck! Every game they win is ALWAYS only because of their skill, never because someone else had a bad run of luck, and ever loss of their is ALWAYS bad luck and a bad beat story.
There's a grey area between "I didn't really shuffle after mana weaving" and "I have completely randomized my deck", and even at a lot of competitive events, I guarantee that many players' decks fall in that grey area...even if they think they're doing a good job of shuffling.
If you're too good at shuffling--completely interweaving every card--you'll actually preserve more order than if you're mediocre at it. If you're too bad at it, large clumps stay together and are also not randomized. You can get to the point of being essentially random, but you need to do a fair number of shuffles (the "cannon" number being 7) and you also need to be good, but not perfect, at shuffling. Calling everybody who falls short on that a cheater may be technically correct, but it's silly and counterproductive.
All of this has already been observed when computerized playing card games were created--experienced players got upset because they were used to reality where true randomization essentially never happens. Whether they're "right" or not, WotC is a business; they've gone with 100% random now, but if too many people were to stop using MTGO because it doesn't feel like the game they're used to, they're completely within their rights to change it.
Mana weaving is 100% legal, so long as you "sufficiently randomize" after that. In theory, it would then make no difference. In practice, show me a case where a judge has issued penalty for insufficient randomization after 5 good riffle shuffles, even though that's still usually not truly random. You can call it cheating if you want, but it's reality, like it or not.
There is no argument that says mana weaving increases the randomness by the way, because you are creating an ordered pattern. That's the opposite of randomness, by definition.
The point is that defining what is truly "randomized" is not a simple thing, and can be hard to tell the difference between something random and something semi-random. Because realistically most people are going to end up semi-random with cardboard, they get a different experience from MTGO and feel like it's wrong. You can call it cheating if it makes you happy, but it's pointless; there probably isn't a player alive who achieves completely 100% randomization every single time they shuffle up, though most will do well enough.
Paper magic will always be semi-random until they introduce card randomizers, and MTGO will be random unless WotC decides that it shouldn't be. That's the source of the complaining, and whining because people are unhappy that there's a difference is just as pointless as whining about the shuffler.