Did they ever fix the Rigged shuffler?

[WhiskerKing]

I'm curious if they ever fixed it or it still completely ♥♥♥♥♥♥?

[ice]

please learn how computer randomization algorithms work

[Player09]

The game is ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. Ignore these wanna be mathematicians telling you otherwise. Don't spend a penny on it. Use it to look at card art and check out new sets. Play it when you want to see how bad people can make a game.

[Free Palestine]

Ursprungligen skrivet av ice:

please learn how computer randomization algorithms work

Please learn how MtG rigs games. Thx.

[Ha 何豪源]

Ursprungligen skrivet av ice:

please learn how computer randomization algorithms work

didnt know u can reproduce the true randomness virtually, ridiculous if you believe that

[ʍolɟ ǝɥʇ ǝsɹǝʌǝɹ]

how to rig games while maintaining statistical probabilistic outcomes. sounds like a phd dissertation in game theory

[Kurt Angle's Neck]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Ha 何豪源:

didnt know u can reproduce the true randomness virtually, ridiculous if you believe that

There's no such thing as true randomness. Every action is a reaction to some other action. Everything can be predicted with 100% accuracy, given you have enough information to do the calculations.
Can you name a single thing in life that is truly random?

[Ha 何豪源]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Kurt Angle's Neck:

Ursprungligen skrivet av Ha 何豪源:

didnt know u can reproduce the true randomness virtually, ridiculous if you believe that

There's no such thing as true randomness. Every action is a reaction to some other action. Everything can be predicted with 100% accuracy, given you have enough information to do the calculations.
Can you name a single thing in life that is truly random?

yes, my life for example. because i dont even know what im doing

[Fox]

This topic is such a dead horse.

yes we know best of one is a broken mess and yes we know the shuffle is rigged. cool.. go play best of three.

wish WOTC would just let anyone face anyone and let the top 7 cards of my deck be no lands or all lands who cares.

but again WOTC does not read this so its pointless. you are screaming into the void. just get everyone to stop playing BO1 if you want them to change how it works. if noone plays the mode something must be wrong and they will make changes. Good luck with that tho.

[ʍolɟ ǝɥʇ ǝsɹǝʌǝɹ]

yes, it would be much more credit to the community to map archetype matchups, figure out go first mechanics, explore why some cards seem to be buried or pairs of cards don't seem to be drawn (hand smoother algorithm?), how the game seems to cheat sometimes (didn't read the card), autotapper as dynamic difficulty adjustment, a wealth of other failure modes not covered in flood screw; such as not drawing a play before t3, not drawing creatures, high hand cmc above the average many game in a row or color screw; which are all normal failure modes expected at normal rates.

[Free Palestine]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Fox:

This topic is such a dead horse.

yes we know best of one is a broken mess and yes we know the shuffle is rigged. cool.. go play best of three.

wish WOTC would just let anyone face anyone and let the top 7 cards of my deck be no lands or all lands who cares.

but again WOTC does not read this so its pointless. you are screaming into the void. just get everyone to stop playing BO1 if you want them to change how it works. if noone plays the mode something must be wrong and they will make changes. Good luck with that tho.

100%

[zeeb]

Guys, let's think about this for a second. Because there's two primary points about the shuffler being rigged that doesn't make much sense to me.

1. WOTC really has nothing to gain on rigging the shuffler, because in a 1v1 when someone gets favoured, the other player gets unfavoured. So it's not viable in retaining a playerbase. It evens out, which makes it pointless.

2. For me it is easier to make a pseudo-random number generator (RNG) than it is to define what card should go where. For example, this is how I made a simple but "good enough" randomizer for my own projects:

// Create & seed the RNG
int PID = getpid();
int currentTime = time(NULL);
int finalSeed = PID + currentTime;

mt19937 RNG;
RNG.seed(finalSeed);

Basically to make RNG you need a source of entropy. As you can see in my code, I use the program's PID and the current time. (quite a few RNG's just uses time because in most cases that is enough)

So with 5 lines of code I got myself a functional RNG that is good enough for games such as this. While if I had to design it to take into account what type of cards should be put where, it would take arrays and some IF statements, loops etc. Long story short it's just more complicated and requires more work afaik.

If someone is interested, info on RNG's can be found here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_number_generation

It's easier, more cost efficient and makes more sense to just straight up make an RNG and we all know WOTC is all about that cost efficiency.

These are the two main points which makes the theory of a rigged shuffler not make sense to me.


However, it may be the case that MTGA uses the rand() / srand() function depending on what language it is coded in. It has several issues which makes most avoid it nowadays in favour of better methods.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/52869166/why-is-the-use-of-rand-considered-bad

[Winter Wolf]

Ursprungligen skrivet av zeeb:

Guys, let's think about this for a second. Because there's two primary points about the shuffler being rigged that doesn't make much sense to me.

1. WOTC really has nothing to gain on rigging the shuffler, because in a 1v1 when someone gets favoured, the other player gets unfavoured. So it's not viable in retaining a playerbase.

2. For me it is easier to make a pseudo-random calculation than it is to define what card should go where. For example, this is how I made a simple but "good enough" randomizer for my own projects:

// Create & seed the RNG
int PID = getpid();
int currentTime = time(NULL);
int finalSeed = PID + currentTime;

mt19937 RNG;
RNG.seed(finalSeed);

Basically to make RNG you need a source of entropy. As you can see in my code, I use the program's PID and the current time. (quite a few RNG's just uses time)

When you launch a program it gets assigned a PID. It's not "random", but can vary widely depending on what current services are running on your computer. Then I just do math with time; add, subtract, multiply, divide, you get the point.

This makes it hard to replicate. You could also add the MAC address or hardware serials of the PC, which makes it really hard to replicate another computer because you need all of these to reverse engineer it while also knowing how it was calculated. This is what I would do if real money were involved, among some other things to make it a nightmare to crack.

So with pretty much 5 lines of code I got myself a functional RNG. While if I had to design it to take into account what type of cards should be put where, it would take arrays and some IF statements etc. Long story short it's just more complicated and requires more work afaik.

These are the two main points which makes the theory of a rigged shuffler not make sense to me.

Yep. Several of us have made this point in previous threads. :)

[sad raccoon]

Someone explain how I draw 7 lands in a row with 3 in my starting hand and 24 in the deck in total

[Malvastor]

Ursprungligen skrivet av sad raccoon:

Someone explain how I draw 7 lands in a row with 3 in my starting hand and 24 in the deck in total

Assuming a 60 card deck.

7 cards are removed, three are lands and three are not.

You have a 21/53 = 39.6% chance of land on your first draw.

If that's a land you have a 20/52 = 38.4% chance of land on your second draw.

A 37.2% chance of land on your third draw.

36%

34.6%

33.3%

31.9%

The fact that your last n draws were land does not actually mean your next draw has to be a spell. The probability of your overall streak of land-drawing is really low, but not actually impossible; you just hit an unlucky game.

[The_Dybbuk_King]

Ursprungligen skrivet av sad raccoon:

Someone explain how I draw 7 lands in a row with 3 in my starting hand and 24 in the deck in total

You drew an opening hand with 3 lands, then during each of your turns, you drew at least one card. 4 of those cards you drew were lands. It's really not that crazy of a thing to happen, especially in bo1 or when cards are shuffled properly