One minor nitpick about the grapeshot/remand/grapeshot example you gave. If you play grapeshot with a storm count of 7 and remand the original, only the 6 copies will resolve - Remand was cast after grapeshot's triggered ability went on the stack so it won't create another copy there. Remand is the 8th spell, recasting grapeshot again for storm 9 means a total of 15 damage.
-
- Algernone25
- Registered User
-
Member for 16 years, 11 months, and 19 days
Last active Sun, Apr, 4 2021 12:11:03
- 3 Followers
- 6,347 Total Posts
- 183 Thanks
You're mostly correct but I'd like to note something. You're right that Dessy is only one data point. However, going first is a binary state - every game in Arena has to have one player go first, so getting a ton of data points from a ton of games will show a near perfect 50/50 of people going first, because half of everyone HAS to go first.
What Dessy's data set is showing (and 500 is probably a large enough number of trials to make a reasonable judgment) is that there is an aberration. It's notable, but it's also useless unless you can identify WHY there's an aberration and HOW that aberration is affecting the play/draw options. Again, hypothesis testing.
It may sort things back into order in the deck building interface, but if you export the decklist to a text file it will be in "cards added" order.
RedditOP did not say he knew what methods WotC used but made some educated guesses because they are apparently near industry standard.
Regarding Dessy, the "who gets to play/draw first" thing is interesting but means nothing unless we have an explanation for why it's uneven, and can test that explanation.
Similarly, what RedditOP has discovered a very probable explanation for the phenomenon, but there's a fair degree of HARKing (Hypothesizing After Results are Known) which means his conclusion is circumstantial. Granted, it's enough circumstantial evidence for me to believe it as fact, but to statistically and scientifically PROVE it as fact requires hypothesis testing that as of yet hasn't been done. (Though I expect once it is done it will confirm the data we've discussed.)
As for the Pay to Play allegations, that's probably another argument entirely, though I'm going to lean on Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence. (The first time)"
I believe what Malumdiabolus is trying to ask is if there's a correlation between your player rank (bronze or gold or diamond or mythic) and how often/how much you get the skew from the expected values - that is, the game gives you worse mana issues if you're low rank and gives you better ones at high rank. Even if that's true, I find it likely that such data would be lost in the noise unless you had the extra effort to control for it, which I'm not sure his scraper is capable of.
I'll admit I'm not a programmer either, but I did a bit of reading on the randomization methods that the RedditOP talks about (Fisher-Yates Shuffle and Mersenne Twister) and I have what I think is a good guess of how the shuffler works:
-List cards in the deck from 1 to N, where N is the total number of cards in the deck.
-Use the Mersenne Twister to generate a random number between 1 and N.
-Find that card in the list and place it on the top (or bottom) of the deck.
-Repeat step 2 to generate a new random number, this time between 1 and N-1.
-Find that card in the iist, skipping over cards you've already placed in the list and place that card at the top (or bottom) of the deck.
-Repeat until all cards from the list are placed in a random order.
This looks all well and good from a technical standpoint. I suspect that the issue is caused by two factors - modulo bias and deckbuilding convention.
The Mersenne Twister dones't just pick a number from 1 to 60, it picks a number between 1 and 2^19937-1 which generates a gargantuan number. To make it fit, Arena probably takes the number and divides by your deck size (or deck size remaining to be shuffled) and uses whatever the remainder is as its random number. But since 60 or 40 doesn't evenly divide into that massive number, some remainders are going to be more common than others and that generates a bias, specifically towards the "top" cards in the list. Now consider the fact that when you start making a deck in Arena, it automatically loads lands into the list for you right as you start putting in cards. If you don't use the auto-land filler, lands are almost certainly the last cards you put into your deck.
This results in a state where the game's randomization table is more likely (not by a ton but by enough) to take cards from the top of your list first, and all the lands in your deck are either at the top or the bottom of that list. That's where I think the true issue lies. This might be testable by putting all your basic lands at the front of the decklist and all the non-basics at the back and see if you constantly see one or the other more frequently.
Why a mulligan fixes things, I assume it takes your already shuffled deck as the seed list instead of reverting to the original decklist, and since the lands aren't all at the top or bottom you now get the expected distribution, or one that's within error.
As for wizards not having done this math, I can think of a couple reasons but the biggest one is this: Wizards putting out a claim that the shuffler has no bias just as proof raises a lot of questions behind their logic - similar to putting out a new cereal that's "100% certified asbestos-free". Is it factual, sure. But you've just raised a hell of a lot more concerns than just breakfast cereal.
This is a sufficient sample size and the data analyzed in a very well-thought out and consistent manner, and the data is presented in a very clear format that makes the point rather clear. I was wrong, there is a problem with the shuffler.
I'm convinced that there is an issue that's going on, and Wizards needs to address this rather quickly because it's a VERY damning issue for them. Until then, about the only thing you can do is arm yourself with the knowledge. For those not wanting to pour through all the technical details, here's a good tl;dr:
-- Limited Decks will constantly be mana-starved, no matter how many you play. Fill up on stuff low on the curve.
-- 22-23 lands is the sweet spot for not getting issues - Play too many more and you get flooded more often, play too many fewer and you get screwed more often compared to expected value.
-- 3 land opening hands are great. 2-land or fewer hands get starved more often, 4-land or more hands get flooded more often compared to expected value.
-- Taking any mulligan seems to put the land/spell ratio back to where it should be.
--By all accounts this appears to be a common mistake in implementing the shuffler algorithm in which the deck is randomized, but not randomized enough. This is why taking a mulligan fixes it. This is an act of incompetence moreso than malfeasance.
-- There is no data to suggest that Arena gives you more copies of specific cards more often than expected.
I am hopeful that the people in charge of this at WotC catch wind of this and are able to affect a fix of some kind. It shouldn't be that hard, from what the report claims.
TheDrB
Great minds think alike, it seems. (Full disclosure I did not see his card when I submitted mine. If I had, I would have radically changed my submission.)
Compared to what I put out, you pumped yours to rare because of its multiplayer applications and the shaved mana cost. Rare seems right given that.
willows
Anything that untaps all your lands is going to be very messy and lead to degenerate board states very quickly. Making it mythic and legendary shows that you recognize that. What this really needs is flavor text, especially to explain why it's a gate. Still a pretty high-value play regardless.
Jimmy Groove
A 2/3 flying haster for UR after an urban evolution is certainly value. This probably could have been uncommon (albeit a very pushed one like Pteramander) and in UR you're probably more in pie for looting (draw this discard) than straight draw.
Raptorchan
Very clean, very simple, very likely needs to be rare if you're taking any format beyond standard into account when designing this - and doubly so with flashback. The flavor text is also confusing, it seems more suited to a discard spell.
zdtsd
I like your out-of-the-box thinking. The challenge said a good card to play on the same turn as urban evolution and you're the only card of the six I'm judging that is clearly designed to be played BEFORE it. That said, 6 mana on top of 5 mana is pretty tough to accomplish normally, but for a mythic turning all of your draws into vampiric tutors probably is definitely a bomby enough effect. Deathtouch might be a bit over the top though, but only a little.
Artorias
It's a tapland that is almost certainly part of a cycle, and not that inspiring. The text is off, it should be "You gain 1 life for each card in your hand" (See Gerrard's Wisdom). If Thornwood Falls can be common this can probably be safely made uncommon.
These were really tough to judge between, all six entries are pretty good and it's hard to just pick out three of them, but I suppose I have to try.
1st - zdtsd
2nd - TheDrB
3rd - JimmyGroove
Seeing as you have repeatedly shown yourself to be incapable of handling subtlety, I'm going to be blunt. You aren't having fun because you are terrible at the game.
When you just started after jumping over from Hearthstone it was understandable - the game is new, there's a completely different resource system, there's a lot of new effects and timing and all kinds of stuff that HS never touched. Magic is a much more nuanced game, and there's going to be a learning curve. Everyone starts out terrible at the game, but if you take the time to learn and understand the differences, you can do well. Several notable HS players have transitioned to Magic very well even if you don't count Brian Kibler (Who started with MTG, jumped on the HS bandwagon and with Arena has come back to MTG)
You have not done this. Instead you have chosen to complain about every single aspect of magic that you don't like, as if you expect that it will magically change for you. Furthermore, you have not only ignored every attempt by everyone on this website to give you advice, you have made an art form out of deflecting blame from yourself. Lose a game or two because of mana flood or topdecks? Obviously wizards is rigging hands! Lose a game because you ignored a disinformation campaign until drew them 10 cards? Wizards can't balance cards worth a hell, these need to be banned! Get blown out by a pteramander you made no effort to kill because you didn't recognize it for the must-answer threat it clearly is? Magic isn't fun, you're just playing the same tier 1 decks on repeat. Do you honestly listen to yourself when you say these things? It's like listening to a whining 5-year old who got a different toy than the one they wanted and is throwing a temper tantrum, and you should be embarrassed.
And no, magic will not change for you, because you want a game that fundamentally isn't magic. If you were actually GOOD at the game and not stuck in the bronze and silver ranks you would see that the game is incredibly varied, there's easily ten to twelve decks you can run into in plat and mythic with regularity, to say nothing of the meme decks like Rainbow Lich or High Alert Marwyn that still win games because the format is one of the widest open we've seen in five years. If you were actually GOOD at the game you would bring up some of the actual legitimate concerns with Arena going forward instead of Dessy's sponsored crapposts, because there are questions that we want answered that are going to make or break the game in the future. And I find it very likely the reason you were banned was because of these personal failings that you STILL have found a way to maintain aren't your fault.
But you're not good at the game, in fact you seem to take pride in refusing to try to become good. So I'm glad you're finally leaving, because it means the rest of us will suffer a little bit less now that you're gone. #ByeFelicia
Psionic Ichor 2BB
Sorcery (Uncommon)
Target opponent discards a card for each card you've drawn this turn.
Cleansing one's gear of the miasmic sludge does little to dampen its effects on the psyche.
Does meet the challenge criteria. Countering ETB triggers is clearly in white's pie, but usually it's a static ability. Also, Paying mana for it also doesn't really justify "also look at the top card" which also doesn't seem to tie into the idea you're going for. This is two halves of a card, and not necessarily halves of the same card IMO. Grammar also needs to be cleaned up.
Flatline
Does meet the challenge criteria. It's a unique spin on a still useful ability that makes sense for the idea you're conveying, and the cost-to-power seems right for a rare. Very nicely done.
Hemlock
Does meet the challenge criteria. This card is VERY heavily pushed. A 4/3 for 3 that also has hexproof and indestructible almost all the time? This should probably be a mythic on power level, but the flavor is more suited to an uncommon - that doesn't mean rare is the right place for it.
Cardz5000
Does meet the challenge criteria. The ability is more commonly found on white and black cards, bant-colored is a pretty significant bend. The templating is also vague, does it get +1/+1 for each keyword it picks up, or just each creature? I assume the latter but the ability needs to have two sentences for that to be clear.
RaikouRider
Does meet the challenge criteria. As you noted, this ability is in-color for black, but not having flying on an imp is a VERY big omission compared to the tribe. (of 36 vintage-legal imps, only 3 of them don't have or can't innately gain flying). Probably undercosted by about half a mana.
netn10
Does meet the challenge criteria. This imp does fly, but the ability seems a HORRIBLE liability even when removal is scarce. I get the image you're going for and it's flavorful but it's horribly underpowered for rare, uncommon is probably correct and even then, do you really want to play this?
1) Flatline
2) Cardz5000
3) RaikouRider
Seems like about the obvious choice.
Turns out that doesn't work. Let's see.Krark the Lighthanded 2RR
Legendary Creature - Goblin Rogue (R)
Whenever a coin flip comes up tails, Krark gains indestructible until end of turn.
"I only need eight fingers anyway."
2/2
Scourge of the Luxa 1UBG
Creature - Devil Elemental (R)
When Scourge of the Luxa enters the battlefield, each player discards X cards and sacrifices X creatures, where X is half of this creature's power, rounded down.
Eternalize 3UB
The din of the locust's assault pierces the sky, leaving the rivers as the only sanctuary...until the Scourge appears.
2/2
Daze - this is 100% at the top of my list, and I'd be flabbergasted if it doesn't get in. With the new mulligan rule (let's not kid ourselves unless there's a twitter protest throughout the entire event this rule change is happening) combo decks in modern get exponentially stronger. Giving control decks a 0-mana counterspell to snap off a lynchpin mid-combo will bring them back down to earth - and it'll be appropriately painful when you have to pick up a Hallowed Fountain to do it.
Grim Tutor - Yes it's $200, but that'll drive pack sales at the gun while not being an obscenely broken card. 4 mana tutors are way too expensive for really any format (Mastermind's Acquisition meme decks notwithstanding) and 2 mana tutors are way too cheap. 3 mana and 3 life is on the heavier side, but if you need an answer NOW then you need it now, and this gets it for you.
Flood Plain et al - slow fetches are simple, effective for people that can't/won't shell out for the big fetches, and an enemy cycle of five to pair with the Mirage five would make a pretty good mana fixing setup at uncommon IMO. You don't NEED a rare land cycle to sell a set, I don't think.
You're right in that they know it exists and make design decisions on what cards to reprint and when based on it, but OFFICIALLY they can't acknowledge it. It's a very slippery slope from "Okay we pick to reprint certain cards to make them more accessible." to "We acknowledge that pack cracking is functionally the same as buying lootboxes but we aren't governed by the same laws because reason" - reasons that would rather quickly vanish.
Everyone on the inside knows what goes on, but they're not allowed to say it for legal reasons.
This is true, but finding the log file, at least on PC, can be tricky if you don't know where to look as it's usually hidden. Go to C:\Users\ and find the user account you use (There will be a "public" and one for each user - most personal computers will only have one) and then append \AppData to the end of the string. This will let you find the file section that's invisible for most settings (even with admin access) and in Local or LocalLow there should be a WotC folder and associated MTGA folder. (In the end it should look like "C:\Users\(your user)\AppData\LocalLow\Wizards Of The Coast\MTGA" the file you're looking for is "output_log" - it'll be a text document.
From there you can CTRL+F "Vault" to find your vault progress as a percentage of full.
Coincidentally right above that is where it tracks how many wildcards you have.
No.
The rule that PP and/or rat colony lets you "break" is the rule that you can only have 4 copies of any card in your deck except basic land. Sealed decks still have the rule of "The only cards you're allowed to use are the cards you open in these packs, plus any number of basic lands" which these kinds of cards can't affect.