Nainstalovat Steam
přihlásit se
|
jazyk
简体中文 (Zjednodušená čínština)
繁體中文 (Tradiční čínština)
日本語 (Japonština)
한국어 (Korejština)
ไทย (Thajština)
български (Bulharština)
Dansk (Dánština)
Deutsch (Němčina)
English (Angličtina)
Español-España (Evropská španělština)
Español-Latinoamérica (Latin. španělština)
Ελληνικά (Řečtina)
Français (Francouzština)
Italiano (Italština)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonéština)
Magyar (Maďarština)
Nederlands (Nizozemština)
Norsk (Norština)
Polski (Polština)
Português (Evropská portugalština)
Português-Brasil (Brazilská portugalština)
Română (Rumunština)
Русский (Ruština)
Suomi (Finština)
Svenska (Švédština)
Türkçe (Turečtina)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamština)
Українська (Ukrajinština)
Nahlásit problém s překladem
Pravidla a pokyny k diskuzím
Nahlásit tento příspěvek
Very much agreed, which is what my previous post's essence realy boils down to as well.
Lotta folks here, like with any discussion about any game, simply feel attacked and can't help but make it a matter of personal anekdotes and experiences vs proof of acclaimed pudding.
You can not rationalize a person out of an opinion or perception they did not rationalize themselves into in the first place.
This type of discussion has been had more than a thousand times over, about a multitude of games and as per usual it is a battleground of the fan's vs the disenfranchised, I.E. the original customer most of the time.
Hence I dismiss most Schmucks here for their int. W of the day, and seek out the very few that can see beyond the "thing is bad" mentality, and get unjustifiably offended over franchise they:
A). Are consumers of first and foremost, not fiscally invested into, which comes with 2 very conflicting motives and incentives for policy and development.
B). Have little to no knowledge about outside of their temporal first level experience, I.E. consumer bias
C). Are more than willing to engage in battle over, which means good faith and morals come last, much like the same idiocracy that incentivized something as idiotic as the "console wars".
Just because you happen to like a product does not mean you have to be an advocate for it, something that needlesly pits normal people's against eachother all the time, leading to needless conflict and overal disengagement.
Some of you seem to understand this, inherently, how could you not having come from the age of entertainments highpoint, to now seemingly the dark age of it.
For all you know, I might be a major stockholder in WoTC/Hasbro, and might be incentivized to deceive you as a consumer, a perspective few of the daily int w dorks seem to be able to comprehend.
Matter of fact is, you would not find them here or on any public record commenting besides placating efforts.
Can tell you one thing though: Most of y'all who are not open to the arguments laid out by some seem incapable of imagining what a board room meeting looks like, let alone a quarterly meeting with shareholders. N that's why some call you sheep, when they point out there's wolves in the world.
*Edit: Took me a while to find it, but I remembered having stumbled across this 2 years ago when I first got sick of MTGA (It is one of my close friends that keeps pulling me back in).
To any asking for evidence, undenieable evidence would require the cracking of MTGA servers to access the uncompiled files, or them releasing said files: There is no 'redhanded' kind of proof in these cases that does not equate to a crime to obtain it OR the company admitting to and confirming allegations levied against them.
HOWEVER: There are case studies, instead of reading material of folks who you don't know, don't like and refuse to have a good faith discussion with, have a go at this puppy! It'll be darn easy to differentiate between those that read it thoroughly, and those who skim through it like they'd study for a High School History exam based on how you talk in reference to the study, so beware, if facade and bravado is your game.
The 2 hours of footage I have nearly sat through by now, I find it inconclusive but telling of the same ol same ol: card clumping being problematic. Which should not be as noticeable with a proper random distribution model especially with lower card counts like limited play has.
Now here's a shuffle, hehe, of words you folks might appreciate so you can leave your pod like mindsets behind for a change: Rather than 'rigged' how about, 'poor mathematical implementation of what should be a randomized experience', or simply put: Bad math models. Perhaps rather than outright evil, it is simply a poor and problematic attempt at "optimizing" the users experience.
Now of course there's no question about online gambling games being rigged against the player in a profitable fashion, so perhaps you could gleam into the realm of possibility now: If not, you are indeed wilfully ignorant. Which is why I'd call you a schmuck and chuckle at your poor efforts to seem 'fair' and 'reasonable'.
Green knows no moral bounds boys, should not be that hard to grasp, should be especially easy if you've been around long enough and or worked a job or two.
But I'll leave the conspiring to the more crazed fellows, I am simply here to breathe down some necks of neckbeards.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MagicArena/comments/b21u3n/i_analyzed_shuffling_in_a_million_games/
With some judicious skipping/slowing/fast forwarding, I've watched it. By my count you play about 11 games with a deck of 14 lands out of 41 cards, and you get an average of 6-ish lands in each. There's one where you get kinda mana screwed because you pull 4 black and no blue until pretty late. There's a couple where you pull 9-11 lands, but for the most part you're not so swamped that you don't have spells to play.
I don't see anything in here to suggest that your draws are being manipulated somehow. Looks like normal drawing with a couple unlucky patches.
Respectfully, you're off-base. I'm quite aware of both what my thoughts are and of what I'm reading when I read someone else's post, and I really don't think you've got any grounds to say otherwise.
from someone who said
has got to be one of the most bizarrely dissonant things I've read all year.
Game 2: 33 cards unknown after opening hand, 10 are lands. 19 cards from the top seen (no shuffles), 5 were lands. 25% chance of this specific outcome, the second most likely. Not sus.
Game 3: 33 cards unknown after opening hand, 11 are lands. 13 cards from the top seen (no shuffles), 5 were lands. 26% chance of this specific outcome, the second most likely. Not sus.
Game 4: 33 cards unknown after opening hand, 11 are lands. 27 cards from the top seen with no shuffles. 9 were lands. 36% chance of this specific outcome, the most probable outcome. Not sus.
Game 5: 33 cards unknown after opening hand, 11 are lands. 17 cards from the top seen, no shuffles. 7 were lands. 18% chance of this happening, third most likely outcome. Not sus.
- New Deck -
Game 6: 33 cards unknown after opening hand, 13 are lands. 16 cards from the top seen, no shuffles. 7 were lands. 25% chance of this outcome, second most likely. Not sus.
Game 7: 33 cards unknown after opening hand, 13 are lands. 20 cards from the top seen, no shuffles again. 8 were lands. 28% chance of this outcome, and it's the most likely. Not really seeing your slam dunk evidence mate, was this the best video you could present?
Game 8: 33 cards unknown after opening hand, 12 are lands. 12 cards from the top seen before a shuffle and I can't be bothered to keep track of the deck contents with scries beyond that point suddenly being relevant again so this is what you get. 7 were lands. 5% chance of this outcome, the 6th most likely. Mildly sus. At the end of this game, after the shuffle, you had 12 of the 15 total lands in deck drawn with only 11 cards remaining, a few on the bottome might have been known but again I can't be bothered with that much detail. Is this the one you were talking about that you think proves it? Because even with 0 card manipulation like scries, which your deck has a lot of, you do realize there's still a 22% chance of this outcome with random draw, right? That's not rare.
Game 9: 33 cards unknown after opening hand, 12 are lands. Only 7 cards seen from the top before conceding, didn't survive long enough for any shuffles. 4 were lands. 15% chance and 4th most likely. Not sus, especially for such a small sample.
Game 10: 33 cards unknown after opening hand, 12 are lands. 16 cards seen. No shuffles. 4 were lands. 12% chance of this happening, fourth most likely outcome. This is getting boring.
Game 11: 33 cards unknown after opening hand, 12 are lands (because of Evolving Wilds removing one on turn 1). 12 cards seen. Shuffle happened before any draw and there were no known cards on bottom so it's fine. 3 cards drawn were lands. 18% chance of this outcome, the third most likely. Not sus.
Game 12 (last one finally): You know the drill, 12 are lands. 4 from the top seen before a shuffle. 3 were lands. 11%, fourth most likely, would be sus if it wasn't 4 cards. After evolving wilds shuffle, because a land was removed and the bottom nonland was shuffled, deck contains 29 unknown cards and 8 are lands. 15 cards from the top were seen, 5 were lands, a 25% chance outcome and the second most likely.
Summary:
You don't know what you're talking about. You don't understand what random or variance is. The shuffler isn't rigged.
Your own data that you could have even cherrypicked shows nothing of substance and if anything confirms the legitimacy of the shuffler. Check my work if you want. You should have been the one who did it first anyway but vibes told you what you wanted to hear so you didn't bother checking, right?
Let's look at a few more things then shall we? Your first deck had 13 lands (33%) and we saw 91 different cards from the top not counting opening hands. We saw 29 lands in that. 29/91 is 32%. Deck 2 was 15/40 or 38%. We saw 33 lands in the 87 unique cards seen on top before shuffles happened and evolving wilds made things complicated. That's 38%.
Are we done here?
There's a reason I wrote what I wrote, and just like how I assume you might have something worthwhile to say, you should assume the same from a person like me as I address you in good faith.
I make an ad hominem attack, feedback on your manner of communicating or whatever words you'd like to put them in, your pick.
At times I chose strong wording and am most certainly willing to denigrate someone's character depending on how I view them.
You are: dismissive.
Whatever thought or perception you might have, you fail to express them, hence you come across as a pasta-brain to a person like me. You dismiss and dish out a whole lot of no, without foundation or basis for what you say.
My basis is going off what I've read from you and assumptions I make about that.
That is not what you might view as: Objective, grounded in facts and you would be right to do so, but then I ask you: When IS, a character judgement, meeting such criteria?
You communicate 'kindly', I put that in quotation because I view it as placating or bordering passive aggressive alike behaviour, to me it's a facade of false kindness.
A 'nice' way of being disrespectfully dismissive, is by no means kind, nor geniune.
It's good to get back to the instigation and motive of my feedback, I believe you are redeemable: Learn how to communicate more directly, but thoughtfully.
Being kind is not about choosing the sugercoated words, it is about treating eachother with dignity first and foremost, friendliness is a nice bonus.
Atleast, in the verbal realm that is, theres more to it depending on which slice of life you talk about. Here: Were in the discussion section, and being the human equivalent of a paper shredder with a smiley drawn onto it is not as funny as it seems.
Whilst I don't support that this 2h footage is definitive and strong support for the OP's case, you do understand your math is way off right?
You are using high school level (yes its recognizable) chance calculation, which is NOT applicable to a deck of cards at all, unless you make it itterable.
Every iterration (card being drawn) you have diminishing return on your draw chances of drawing a land UPON drawing a land, or increase in likeleness upon EACH not land drawn. Look up: Hypergeometric Distribution.
That can help you find the required understanding, seen as I guarentee you, you will never accept anything someone tells you online unless you have put it into a search bar yourself: I.E. Joe "my smartphone knows best" Schmuck.
I will not resort to namecalling but the fact you did high school level chance calculation in and a grandiose display of it of this level, is very telling: YOU can't fathom levels of understanding beyond your own it seems.
Not a SINGLE draw order has a chance higher than 40x40 of being the likely outcome.
That is the only definitive statement you can make based on that.
IF there are 13 lands total in a 40 card deck, you have 2 in your starting hand whilst having drawn 7 cards total: You need a OR paralel formula to approximate your drawing chances of drawing a land, which is iterritable. You can make a chance based calculation like you do ONLY per turn gamestate.
I'm not wringing myself through the mental gymnastics of doing that for you, as it'll just lead to nitpicking it apart and folks showing their poor understanding of mathematics at large.
However what you're doing here is not just wrong, it is idiotically so. N I don't like using that term when reffering to people their ideas, which if anything fails to piss me off, I'd rather feel that way. I feel disappointed instead.
So to answer your question directly, we indeed are, as this one attack is all you'll get from me. Blacklisting Schmucks is a necessity for me, on the internet that is.
I find Joe more tolerable and likeable in real life since the false sense of security in anonymity seems to be the main culprit in online communication.
Almost as if people are a whole lot more rude in their own mind and when they dare express it...
That's taken into account. It is iterative. Did you do the math too? What numbers did you get? Please point out where my calculations are off, I'm always open to learn.
Good. People that are arrogantly wrong should be dismissed. "The shuffler is rigged" is not an opinion statement and you don't get to make up your own facts.
I don't care if you call me an idiot or not, but hiding behind not using the word specifically and then saying essentially the same thing with a lot more words and commas doesn't change anything. You're just skirting around it and not being direct. You can think (and say!) I'm an idiot. It's fine. Just say what you mean.
On the off-chance you aren't trolling and are being genuine without realizing how you come across, your posts don't sound polite, just exceptionally condescending and infantilizing. Just so you know.
Kinda like this:
Except the paper shredder is sipping tea in a fancy parlor with an extended pinkie instead of having a smiley face.
Okay, you absolutely did not do your own calculations. You just don't like me or the conclusions I've drawn so you went dismissive (ironic) and for a personal attack. This is literally hypergeometric distribution.
Edit: There isn't a better encapsulation of this conspiracy theory, this thread, this forum, or maybe even this community than someone barging in to a topic, not reviewing any factual information that was presented, not doing their own calculations, picking a side based on vibes or tribes, being excessively confident despite also being wrong, launching condescending attacks, and leaving smug about it.
Slickmund wins. Game's rigged.
I've expressed my thoughts pretty clearly here, I think. And I've given my reasons for dismissing things.
You communicate 'kindly', I put that in quotation because I view it as placating or bordering passive aggressive alike behaviour, to me it's a facade of false kindness.
A 'nice' way of being disrespectfully dismissive, is by no means kind, nor geniune.
It's good to get back to the instigation and motive of my feedback, I believe you are redeemable: Learn how to communicate more directly, but thoughtfully.
Being kind is not about choosing the sugercoated words, it is about treating eachother with dignity first and foremost, friendliness is a nice bonus.
Atleast, in the verbal realm that is, theres more to it depending on which slice of life you talk about. Here: Were in the discussion section, and being the human equivalent of a paper shredder with a smiley drawn onto it is not as funny as it seems. [/quote]
Since you acknowledge that your unasked for assessment of my character is based purely on your own assumptions, let me express that I'm dismissing your perfumed insults and condescending rating of 'redeemable'. I'll let your work out the foundation for that on your own.
Not sure how new you or the others are to the gaming space of how it is now and has sadly been turned into a revolving door of crap made games to make a quick buck and milk people of cash for subpar experiences.
Most free to play games and this extends out to games on your cellphones, are there to milk people of money. There are exceptions to that with developers that don't want be greedy like the many other devs. Sure they'll have a cash shop, but you can see from how the game runs, the mechanics and amount of options you have as a player to play the game in the way that is fun for you. A very good example I would say is Path of Exile(PoE), free to play game and the amount of freedom you have in that game to play in your own way is amazing. Diablo 3, 4 and Immortal don't even hold a candle to PoE.
Sure PoE has a cash shop for you to buy cosmetics and some extra stash space, along with pets. But the devs of PoE ARE gamers who are passionate about gaming and grew disillusioned with the state of games and where they were heading. Its why they made PoE and weren't looking at it from a how much money can we milk people point of view, but what kind of game they and people like us would enjoy.
Now as for how lots of you keep asking for us to prove to you that there is something weird going on with the "randomness". The only sure fire way ANY of us could prove it, without any of you shifting the goalposts or simply dismissing that proof. Is IF we somehow were able to get a look under the hood so to speak, we'd need to be able to check things for ourselves. And short of that there would be nothing any of us could do to provide with anything that might shift your view on the game and the defense you run for it.
I grew up playing paper MTG, built countless decks and done hundreds of draft nights at card shops or with friends. Been playing since 2002 as well I'm not a old guy. But I have been playing for quite some time. Some of you have said well there is no way your decks in paper MTG would never have mana issues if you weren't cheating in some way!
You resort to trying and paint me as a cheater because my experience with paper MTG doesn't confirm to what you've seen in the different games that WoTC has put out. You have no idea what kind of a person I am or have never played against me in paper MTG so you have nothing to back up your claims. Just like how you all say we don't have anything to back up our claims and suspicions. You guys can't have it both ways.
Most of my decks ran 20-22 mana in paper MTG and my decks were built around in mind with not relying on high cost spells and creatures to be my crutch. Do they have high cost spells and creatures in some of them? Sure two of my decks had creatures with high costs. But I also had things in those decks that would reduce the cost of all my creatures or ways to generate more mana, or free ways of getting things out into the field(my arty deck was the one that had free ways to get things out onto the field, but it also helped my opponent was the trade off).
Could it be that the shuffler isn't rigged, but that there is just really bad math/programming at work? Sure it can be and with WoTC being the ones to make all of the magic games thus far, it does lend some credence to that. Since they are a company with zero experience in making games. And when I say games I'm talking about games we play here on steam or on consoles and handhelds. The flip side to them being their own developer and publisher is that well they hold the keys to code. They can do as they please anytime they want. We've seen plenty examples of games where the devs had systems built into the game that would push you to spend money on things, among other ways they would drive monetization or simply having you play more often, since the more you played the higher chance you'd start to spend.
Lots of those things were done with throttling xp, loot and many other things. A good example of that was Destiny 2 they were caught red handed early on after launch of sneakily making things take longer to do. This was the XP throttling they were doing because after hitting the level cap, you could still gain xp to then get bright engrams to drop as a reward for "leveling up". Why did they do that? Because the bright engrams dropped cosmetic items and some bright dust(iirc). You could also BUY the bright engrams and cosmetics that drop from them at the ingame shop. So they had an incentive to throttle xp so people wouldn't be able to farm the cosmetics through earning bright engrams.
Now if a triple AAA developer is willing to do that to consumers, people like us. Do you really think WoTC wouldn't do such things either if they could do it in a way that would be hard to prove? Why do you think Games Workshop doesn't make a single Warhammer game? But yet licenses it out to developers? Mind you a company that has a MUCH bigger stock price than Hasbro.
My few cents to add. All I can say is that the paper MTG doesn't play anywhere near to how it is played here in Arena through the systems that WoTC has in place.
Despite what you think, I don't have any particular allegiance to WotC, or any deeply held faith that they're above shady revenue-wringing schemes. Even if I ever did think that I play D&D and their whole OGL 1.2 fiasco would have thoroughly disabused me of it.
I'm not dismissive of the the rigging accusations because I think WotC would never be mean to its customers; I'm dismissive because no one, as of yet, has prevented clear evidence that there's rigging, and because the theories they make up around those claims rarely make coherent sense as money-making efforts.
That would be the only way to prove rigging without a doubt. But it's not the only way to present evidence, and it's not what anyone's really asked for. Just showing a decklist and a consistent pattern of games where you're drawing from that deck and getting statistically implausible results would be enough to at least take your claims seriously. But almost no one who claims the game is rigged seems willing to do that (I'll at least give sirsnoozel credit for posting a vid, even if it really didn't indicate what he claimed it would).
Like I said in my other post, IF triple AAA companies are willing to do that. What makes you think WoTC won't when they are owned by Hasbro.
The "randomness" in Arena doesn't feel very random at all. And I know a certain someone is going to say that playing poker at a Casino isn't the same thing for randomness. Which doesn't even make sense to me SINCE Casino's can't rig games in such a way that the player is at a severe disadvantage. They answer to not just State agencies but Federal oversight as well. Does the house have an advantage in table games? You know one where they use a shuffler to deal out the hands to players and the dealer. I'd say the only real time the house has an advantage is when the table is full. Since there are more chances for players to take bad hands over the dealer. Since you know the dealer is last to take a hand. And that would vary from type of table game as well. Like Blackjack it can go either way and more so in your favor if you know how to count cards.
Where as if say its just me and the dealer playing, I have 50/50 odds at winning the hand or simply winning on part of the bet. I might lose the "hand" but win on other parts that I bet on for the hand. So I still came out even or in other cases very much ahead.
All I have to offer you is what the game is showing me as I play and comparing that against paper MTG and well table games at Casino's since those feel much more random than Arena to me.
Sure I could record my matches here. But I'd need hours upon hours of recorded footage to even small sample. And even at those hours and hours of recorded footage, to me isn't no where near enough. You'd need much more than that, to really crunch numbers and see what kind of variance there is.
Take a looksy then.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MagicArena/comments/b21u3n/i_analyzed_shuffling_in_a_million_games/
Yeah, I actually agree with what you're saying for the most part. It's a company so they're going to try to make money but nobody has to pretend like they are angels and I don't think anyone here, that I've seen at least, has. The past couple of years has been really bad for their PR and frankly, if the entire game was released today at the same prices it goes for it would be ridiculed into oblivion, but it enjoys it's reputed classic status so most of us just kind of accept the outrageous prices (I'm talking about paper here too) are just part of how it works and let it slide. It's funny because half the threads I'm in people call me a shill and the other half people call me an ungrateful hater who exaggerates how bad the economy is.
"Wizards is not an admirable company." is an opinion you're entitled to.
"The shuffler is rigged." is not an opinion. This is something you have to back up with evidence and nobody has. Here or otherwise.
Beyond the hand smoother that's known to exist, right?
Post your own video. I'll spend my own time of my own free will to go through it exactly the way I did with the OP's, if you don't want to do the math yourself. I watch it 4x speed with a notepad while I'm listening to an audiobook so it doesn't take much of my time and I don't really mind. You guys can call me a shill if you want, but I'd be just as excited as anyone else if you actually found proof of a scam like you're claiming and a couple of us randos were the ones who discovered it.
I just don't believe you have any evidence. That's the only problem.
Sorry not sure where the right place is to cut out what you're replying to.
I know I came off earlier in these discussions as calling lots of you sheep, shills and what not. I'll admit not the best course of action, and that's on me for going that route. Just some of the responses mainly from that one guy that got banned rubbed me the wrong way and I went at it.
I don't think you or Malvastor are sheep or shills. Malvastor might come off to me as someone that gives a lot of faith in people being just inherently good and won't do bad things. You've both probably heard many of the claims brought up in this thread before and are equally tired hearing about it. So I can understand the push back you gave.
And yes beyond the hand smoother. Just to me from my experience in playing paper MTG, their online versions, card games at casino's and also my own experience working at a Gaming company for years(Casino gaming company). I think I have a good eye for spotting inconsistency in things. I mean my job at the Gaming company was to catch bugs and other issues with the software and make sure that the software was in compliance with the State requirements and Federal requirements. That last part was a bit of a doozy, from one of my earlier posts where I mentioned what an engineer had done in the code to make the software appear to adhere to the State requirements. He was crafty in the way he hid it, but during my test something didn't feel right from what the data was telling me, it all lined up WAY too neatly, and wasn't how the system worked in the earlier version. Sure there is variance to it but this was beyond the norm.
I managed to catch what he did by extending out the testing phase for a few months and then the software started to act up and the system began to give us the true data. Data that had we submitted to the State earlier, and they NOTICED it instead would have ended with a very big fine and possibly taking our license away to operate in the state.
I'd be willing to do long recordings and get them ready for you, in the future. Currently its not a good time for me. Undergoing lots of testing and seeing doctors about something they've found in my brain during an MRI. Odds are I'm gonna needy surgery most likely, so my plate is a bit full with that at the moment. If you like audio books though for when you do watch the recordings when and if I am able to record them. Should listen to The Casual Criminalist.